&EPA United States Environmental Protectior Agency EPA/600/R-21/291 | November 2021 www.epa.gov/emergency-response-research How to Get to Know Communities and Cultures: Methods for Remediation, Removal, and Redevelopment Projects Office of Research and Development Homeland Security Research Program ------- Disclaimer The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and Development's Homeland Security Research Program, funded and managed this research. This research was supported in part by an appointment to the Internship/Research Participation Program at the EPA's Office of Research and Development, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through and interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA. Survey research was conducted with RTI International under EPA Contract Number EP-C-16-016, Task Order Number 68HERC20F0209. This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or the policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any mention of trade names, manufacturers or products does not imply an endorsement by the United States Government or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA and its employees do not endorse any commercial products, services, or enterprises. All photos came from the EPA Flickr library unless otherwise specified. Questions concerning this document, or its application, should be addressed to: Keely Maxwell Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response Office of Research and Development (8801R) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 202-564-5266 Maxwell. keely@epa.gov in ------- Foreword The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. The Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response (CESER) within the Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducts applied, stakeholder-driven research and provides responsive technical support to help solve the Nation's environmental challenges. The Center's research focuses on innovative approaches to address environmental challenges associated with the built environment. We develop technologies and decision-support tools to help safeguard public water systems and groundwater, guide sustainable materials management, remediate sites from traditional contamination sources and emerging environmental stressors, and address potential threats from terrorism and natural disasters. CESER collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that improve the effectiveness and reduce the cost of compliance, while anticipating emerging problems. We provide technical support to EPA regions and programs, states, tribal nations, and federal partners, and serve as the interagency liaison for EPA in homeland security research and technology. The Center is a leader in providing scientific solutions to protect human health and the environment. Remediation, removal, and redevelopment at contaminated or potentially contaminated sites entail working across cultures to engage with diverse community constituencies. Techniques stemming from the social sciences can be used to generate a deeper understanding of communities, cultures, and affected populations near contaminated sites. This report provides a methodology that federal, state, local, or tribal cleanup practitioners can follow to get to know communities. This customizable guide has many applications, depending on the role, needs, and cleanup situation of the user. It introduces community cultural characteristics related to cleanups and describes quantitative and qualitative techniques for getting to know a community, data sources, analyzing social data, and a framework to plan for ongoing cultural learning. The approaches discussed in this report provide a social scientific basis for culturally informed remediation, removal, and redevelopment. Gregory Sayles, Director Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response iv ------- Table of Contents Disclaimer iii Foreword iv Abbreviations vii Acknowledgements viii Executive Summary ix 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Project Research and Quality Assurance 3 3.0 Scientific Foundation of the Methodology 5 4.0 How to Get to Know Communities 13 4.1 Familiarize yourself with community cultural characteristics 14 4.2 Prioritize learning about local characteristics for a given cleanup situation 21 4.3 Learn about a specific community 22 4.3.1 By the Numbers 23 4.3.2 Site-Specific Documents 24 4.3.3 Community Resources 24 4.3.4 EPA Resources 26 4.3.5 Qualitative Techniques for More In-depth Cultural Learning 27 4.4 Analyze for cross-cultural understanding 28 4.5 Create an ongoing cultural learning plan 30 5.0 Summary and Conclusion 32 References 33 Glossary 38 Appendix A. Additional EPA Resources 40 v ------- Tables of Figures Figure 1. Environmental cleanups 1 Figure 2. Examples of social actors in cleanups 8 Figure 3. Benefits of culturally informed cleanups 12 Figure 4. Familiarize yourself with community cultural characteristics 14 Figure 5. Community characteristics of interest 15 Figure 6. Ways to learn about a community 23 Figure 7. Community resources 25 Figure 8. Cultural learning plan 31 TABLES Table 1. Applications of this methodology 2 Table 2. Getting started guide 3 Table 3. Elements of culture 8 Table 4. Least to most intensive learning efforts 22 Table 5. Quantitative data sources 23 Table 6. EPA resources 26 Table 7. Qualitative data 27 vi ------- Abbreviations AT SDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry CAG Community Advisory Group CERCLA Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CIC community involvement coordinator EJ environmental justice EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency LUST leaking underground storage tank NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan OSC on-scene coordinator PCB polychlorinated biphenyl QC quality control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RPM remedial project manager SALT Strategy, Action, Learning, Tools TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act UST underground storage tank vii ------- Acknowledgements This document was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Homeland Security Research Program within the EPA Office of Research and Development. The research team consisted of the Principal Investigator Keely Maxwell and Brittany Kiessling, a postdoctoral social scientist. Initial research was done by the research team in conjunction with American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science and Technology Policy Fellow Jenifer Buckley. The report conclusions are based upon data provided by key informants and survey participants in EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management and regional offices. EPA reviews were conducted by Kate Mulvaney, Kathleen Williams, Terra Haxton, and Sang Don Lee. External peer reviews were conducted by Arn Keeling and E. Christian Wells. viii ------- Executive Summary The following report provides a methodology that federal, state, local, or tribal cleanup practitioners can follow to learn about communities and understand local cultures. Remediation and removal actions at contaminated sites takes place in diverse contexts. A culturally informed approach to cleanup and redevelopment can increase community buy-in, trust-building, conflict resolution, and positive social outcomes. It can be used to help fulfill federal executive orders E.O. 12898 (1994), 13985 (2021), and 14008 (2021), which address environmental justice, climate change, and equity. The steps detailed in this report are based upon cutting edge social science theories and methods from cultural anthropology, geography, public health, risk communication, and disaster studies. The report is grounded in social science research conducted with cleanup practitioners at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and incorporates EPA materials. It explains how cleanups and culture intersect and lays out the benefits of culturally informed cleanup practices. The methodology for getting to know communities, cultures, and affected populations near contaminated sites is comprised of five main components: Familiarize yourself with relevant community characteristics - This section provides detailed examples of community characteristics reflecting local culture and how that might affect cleanup processes, outcomes, engagement, and decision-making. Community characteristics include economy, demographics, and health. Prioritize learning about the local cleanup situation - This section highlights different parameters about the site that practitioners can consider when deciding how in-depth their cultural learning should be and how to prioritize approaches. Examples of such parameters are site location, size of incident, and length of time it is likely to take to complete cleanup work. Learn about the community - This section offers examples of data and resources that practitioners could use to learn about a community, such as census data and local informants. It provides links to tools and data to access more information and support. Analyze for cross-cultural understanding - This section walks the user through best practices for data collection, management, and analysis for understanding culture. Create an ongoing cultural learning plan - This section provides ideas for how practitioners can develop a plan for ongoing learning and reflection. It has a simple three- piece framework: know before you go, learn once you get onsite, and ongoing learning. Overall, the methodology presented in this report has many applications, depending on the role, needs, and cleanup situation of the user. It can provide a framework for tabletop exercises or help practitioners prepare for a town hall meeting. The methodology is not meant to be formulaic; rather, it provides a customizable set of concepts and techniques that can be applied based on the context. This report provides a scientific foundation for achieving culturally informed cleanups. IX ------- 1.0 Introduction In this section you will learn about: - Definitions of key terms that are important for getting to know communities The report objectives - How you can apply this report to your work on cleanups Remediation, time-critical and non-time critical removals, and redevelopment of contaminated or potentially contaminated sites require interactions with diverse communities who live near and might be affected by contamination and cleanup activities. Getting to know communities, cultures, and affected populations near contaminated sites has a positive effect on remediation, removal, and redevelopment processes and outcomes. Community is a group of people that live in the same vicinity (e.g., county, city, neighborhood) or share a common defining characteristic (e.g., online gaming). Culture is "the entire pattern of belief and behavior that is learned and shared by people as members of a social group" (Kiefer 2007). Affected population is the portion of community(ies) that is impacted in some way (e.g., health, property, emotions, society) by a contaminated site and/or its cleanup. Figure 1 portrays how this report conceptualizes environmental cleanup as encompassing a variety of contaminated sites, response actions, contaminants, and social actors (i.e., anyone who might be affected by or has the capacity to affect cleanups) (adapted from Kiessling et al. 2021). Superfund Brownfield Environ, emergency Federal facility Characterization Decontamination Redevelopment Remediation Removal Waste Disposal Figure 1. Environmental cleanups. Getting to know communities helps cleanup practitioners to conduct remediation, removals, and redevelopment in a culturally informed manner. Through understanding who communities, 1 ------- cultures, and affected populations are, cleanup processes can be improved. For example, culturally informed cleanups provide a foundation for community engagement, it helps individuals and organizations to build trust and relationships, it facilitates cross-cultural risk communication, and it supports equitable participation in decision-making. It provides additional benefits in enabling practitioners to more readily address local environmental justice (EJ) concerns related to disproportionate impacts, fair treatment, and meaningful involvement. This report provides a social science-based methodology for learning about key characteristics and constituencies of communities, cultures, and affected populations near contaminated sites. The methodology supports "social" site characterization to complement environmental site characterization and assessment that forms the basis for remedy selection. This report provides a systematic methodology that synthesizes existing practices and strategies gathered through interviews and surveys with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) personnel, written materials from EPA and other agencies, as well as findings from the scientific literature. It lays out the rationale for how culture relates to cleanup work. It discusses key community characteristics and their relevance to cleanups. It details techniques for learning about these characteristics for a given locale, as well as social and environmental parameters that affect when and how to selectively use components of this methodology. Finally, it provides an orientation to qualitative data collection, management, and analysis. The objective of this report is to provide cleanup practitioners at federal, state, local, and tribal environmental agencies with a framework and step-by step guide for how to get to know communities, cultures, and affected populations near contaminated sites. At EPA, cleanup practitioners include personnel who work as on-scene coordinators (OSC) for time- critical or non-time critical removals; site assessors or remedial project managers (RPMs) for Superfund sites; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action, underground storage tank (UST)/leaking underground storage tank (LUST), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), or Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) site managers; brownfield managers; as well as community involvement coordinators (CIC) or public affairs specialists. The methodology can be used in several applications (Table 1). It is not intended to be a rigid sequence that must be replicated precisely in all site assessments, remediations, and removals; rather, it is designed to be customizable to different cleanup situations. It may be adapted and refined by individual programs and staff. Table 1. Applications of This Methodology Who Could Use It For What Supervisors Identify relevant trainings for staff OSCs Work through tabletop exercises Site assessors Identify locally specific exposure pathways Brownfield managers Tailor technical assistance to local capacity & needs CICs Prepare for a town hall meeting RPMs Start work on a Superfund site that's new to them State environmental agencies Manage state brownfield sites RCRA managers Prepare risk communication on possible hazardous releases CIC, community involvement coordinator; OSC, on-scene coordinator; RCRA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; RPM, remedial project manager 2 ------- Readers can jump to applicable sections rather than reading each section sequentially. Table 2 provides a Getting Started Guide on each section. Table 2. Getting Started Guide I want to... Head to Section Read about the research behind this report 2.0 Project research and quality assurance Learn about why culture is relevant to cleanups 3.0 Scientific foundation of this methodology Learn about key community characteristics 4.1 Familiarize yourself with community cultural characteristics Figure out what I most need to know 4.2 Prioritize learning for a given cleanup situation Identify data sources to get to know a community 4.3 Learn about a specific community Figure out how to put together what I've learned 4.4 Analyze for cross-cultural understanding Plan for ongoing learning about a place 4.5 Create an ongoing cultural learning plan 2.0 Project Research and Quality Assurance In this section you will learn about: - What data was collected for this report - Whose expertise is represented This report is based upon four years of mixed-methods social science research grounded in anthropology. The project started with a literature review of existing research on the social science of environmental cleanups (Maxwell et al. 2018). The literature review included materials from a wide range of disciplines such as anthropology, environmental science, human geography, science and technology studies, and sociology. Data quality objectives for the literature review were used to ensure that data sources met EPA quality standards. Specific objectives were that the review was comprehensive, and information was extracted from the articles accurately. This was achieved by having researchers cross-check one another's inclusion reviews, random quality control (QC) checks to ensure accuracy in metadata and information recorded, triangulating information from multiple sources, and assessment of data saturation (Kiessling and Maxwell forthcoming; Maxwell et al. 2018). From that review, the research team identified patterns and gaps in knowledge about the social dynamics of cleanups. The main areas covered by the literature were cleanup worker health, public engagement and decision-making, and societal benefits of cleaned-up sites. The main themes found by the review were building trust, social and power dynamics of engagement and decision-making, and non-economic evaluation of outcomes (Maxwell et al. 2018). The findings from that review became the basis of ongoing research to investigate those patterns and fill in the gaps in knowledge. The research team interviewed 25 EPA cleanup practitioners to generate an understanding of the experiences of cleanup practitioners on the ground as compared to information provided in the literature (Kiessling et al. 2021). The sample consisted of OSCs, RPMs, CICs, and brownfield managers. The participants had a wide range of experiences with removal, remediation, and redevelopment. Data quality objectives for the interviews were to ensure that the interviews 3 ------- generated productive conversation, transcripts accurately captured the conversation, and coding was consistently and appropriately applied to the transcripts. This was achieved by having researchers create and pilot test interview protocols and informed consent, perform random QC checks of transcripts and fix mistakes, assess data saturation to double check the final number of interviews, and come to agreement on coding, or labelling qualitative data, within the team (see Kiessling et al. 2021 for details). The approach was inclusive of many types of cleanup related work. The interviews gathered data about the cleanup situations and communities, place, the approaches EPA employees use to engage the public, the methods they use to build trust, and the successes and challenges they experience in the field. The results revealed three layers of sedimented social histories that interact to affect cleanup processes and outcomes: local and regional social contexts, institutional power and authority, and social actor relationships and networks (Kiessling et al. 2021). Defining Social Actors and Stakeholders EPA uses the term stakeholder to describe a person who has a strong interest in the Agency's policies or stake in EPA's decisions. Social actor is a broader term as it includes anyone who might be affected by or has the capacity to affect cleanups. The term social actor is preferred in anthropology because there are power dynamics of who gets to determine who has a stake in the outcome. The other piece of research that provided data for this report is a survey of nearly 400 EPA employees. The survey sample built upon the interview sample, starting with the same base EPA program s and job roles, and then expanded to include representation from additional job roles relevant to Superfund, RCRA, underground storage tanks, emergency response, brownfield redevelopment, and federal facilities. The survey sample represents a deeper and wider cross- section of the cleanup practitioner community at EPA than the interviews. The survey questions also had similar themes to the interviews. This allowed for comparisons and generalizations to be made across a variety of contexts (e.g., region, program, community type). Data quality objectives for the surveys were to ensure that sampling and recruitment reached the population of interest, the survey instrument captured data as intended, survey data were recorded accurately, and the dataset maintained integrity throughout analysis, allowing analysis to be generalizable. This was achieved by following the designed sampling frame, pilot testing the questionnaire and informed consent, technical testing of the survey instrument undertaking extensive recruitment and outreach efforts, including eligibility questions, reviewing daily data reports, conducting random QC checks, and establishing and following protocols for outliers and other data concerns. Cleanup workers remove a barrel containing potentially hazardous material. 4 ------- The survey found that EPA cleanup practitioners work relatively evenly in urban, suburban, and rural communities, with a smaller percentage in tribal areas. They learn about communities by examining site-specific documents, EPA resources, quantitative data sources, and community resources. They use different public engagement techniques based on the stage of cleanup, such as holding public meetings, providing fact sheets, and visiting door-to-door. The final piece of data that went into this report is an examination of existing EPA and external documents that provide guidance on culture and communities (see Appendix A). The research team reviewed materials developed or posted by different offices in EPA, including the Superfund Program, Community Involvement University, EPA Community Resource Network, the Office of Water, and the former National Center for Environmental Innovation (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002, 2003, 2020). EPA's public Superfund Community Involvement Tool website contains PDFs of relevant resources, including: Community Profiles Tool, Community Interviews Tool, and community involvement plans (see Appendix A). These EPA materials offer guidance for getting to know a community. The CIC Community Profile Tool has suggestions for presenting information visually and has step-by-step instructions for using EJSCREEN (Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool), an online environmental justice screening and mapping tool. The Community Interview Tool is a helpful guide for how to conduct interviews with community members. The methodology in this report provides a scientific foundation for using these materials and supplements them by enabling a deeper cultural analysis. The research team foresees that cleanup practitioners can use the report's methodology in conjunction with these other materials. The methodology also suggests additional quantitative and qualitative data sources and analytical techniques. 3.0 Scientific Foundation of the Methodology In this section you will learn about: EPA's community involvement requirements Connections between equity, EJ concerns and getting to know communities The social actors involved in cleanups - How culture impacts cleanups - Benefits and examples of culturally informed cleanups The practice of getting to know communities has a rich history in environmental, conservation, development, and disaster work. These practices draw on principles and techniques used in applied social and social-environmental sciences, i.e. rapid rural or participatory rural appraisal in international agricultural development (Chambers 1981, 1994), health anthropology (Kiefer 2007), social impact assessment (Gramling and Freudenburg 1992; Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment 2012), ecosystem management (Force and Machlis 1997; Machlis et al. 1997), urban ecology (Cadenasso et al. 2006; Pickett et al. 2011), and disasters (U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency 2019). This report helps cleanup practitioners at EPA and other agencies meet existing requirements and recommended approaches for community involvement. Working with local social actors and institutions during the cleanup process provides benefits such as engaging in dialogue with 5 ------- diverse perspectives, addressing communities' EJ concerns, and providing opportunities for meaningful community input (Charnley and Engelbert 2005; Kiessling et al. 2021; Zaragoza 2019). EPA's use of community involvement has expanded over time (Charnley and Engelbert 2005; Zaragoza 2019). Different EPA programs have different requirements for community involvement derived from underlying statutes and response frameworks, including the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). For example, a community involvement plan should be prepared for remedial actions and for removals lasting 120 days or more, or with a planning period of at least six months in which an engineering evaluation/ cost analysis must be completed (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2020). EPA resources provide legal and practical rationales for community involvement, and techniques for conducting community interviews and other activities to prepare community profiles and to develop a community involvement plan (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2020). Communicating about science and risk is a common component of remediation, removal, and redevelopment projects. EPA has a 2021 Strategy, Action, Learning, and Tools (SALT) framework for risk communication. The SALT framework recommends understanding audience factors as part of effective risk communication. Audience factors include language, literacy, numeracy, identity, cultural norms and biases, community history, time, and economics. Risk communicators can use the techniques from this methodology to get to know local audiences. It can help them conduct more targeted and more effective outreach and engagement (Kim and Kang 2019; Raimond 2001). Publi c and agency understandings of risk and knowledge of hazards are culturally as well as technically based (Allen 2003; Auyero and Swistun 2008; Power and Keeling 2018). Risk communication thus necessitates attention to the cultural differences between institutions and social actors that underpin risk perceptions. Federal executive orders E.O. 12898 and E.O. 14008 regarding EJ, climate change, and equity provide additional impetus for getting to know communities as part of remediation, removal, and redevelopment at contaminated sites (The White House 1994, 2021). EPA is obliged to "deliver environmental justice" (The White House 2021); advance "equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity" (The White House 2021); and engage with "members of underserved communities" (The White House 2021). Equity concerns can be actively incorporated into cleanup decisions such as: After a wide area incident, determining locations within a community to clean up first. Carrying out equitable, culturally appropriate resettlement or temporary relocation. Ensuring that redevelopment plans benefit marginalized or underserved communities. A school bus route through an industrial area is an E J concern. 6 ------- As social science research shows, low-income, tribal, and communities of color in the United States long have expressed EJ concerns regarding disproportionate effects from contaminated sites and the need for fair treatment and meaningful involvement in cleanups (Allen 2003; Checker 2005; Hoover 2017). The four dimensions of EJ are distributional, procedural, recognitional, and capabilities (Eisenhauer et al. 2021; Schlosberg 2007). Conducting cleanups in a way that addresses all four dimensions requires insights into local histories of structural racism, political and economic marginalization, barriers to participation, power dynamics, and residents' concerns, sensitivities, values, and aspirations. Dimensions of Environmental Justice (adapted from Eisenhauer et al. 2021; Schlosberg 2007) Procedural Justice - Fair and equitable institutional processes of governance, including public participation. Distributional Justice - Equal access to goods, liberties, and opportunities; and fair processes for allocating burdens. Recognitional Justice - Acknowledgement and addressing differences between social and cultural groups in their practices, values, and needs. Capabilities Justice - Provision of support to people and groups, based on social context, for participation in governance, agency for self-determination, and quality of life. Cleanup practitioners interact with a number of social actors from different organizations involved with cleanups (Figure 2) (Kiessling et al. 2021). Social science research indicates that building trust, social relationships, and community involvement are integral to successful cleanup work (Ando 2018; Ferri 1994; Kiessling et al. 2021; Lange and McNeil 2004; Maxwell et al. 2018; Metcalf et al. 2015; Zaragoza 2019). Factors that influence the trust community members have in EPA and other social actors who are involved with cleanups include: historic relationships of communities with government agencies, recognition of differential social vulnerabilities, and consideration of local knowledge (Cheong and Hazelwood 2015; McCaffrey 2018; Metcalf et al. 2015; Tsosie 2015; Ulibarri et al. 2020). Other strategies for building trust are: including a broad range of social actors on advisory groups, conducting meaningful public engagement that affects decision-making, reaching out to community leaders, hiring locals as part of cleanup work, and ensuring that cleanup outcomes benefit the community (Cheong and Hazelwood 2015; Raimond 2001; Ulibarri et al. 2020). All these trust-building activities require an understanding of local social actors, organizations, values, and knowledge. 7 ------- FEMA USACE Governor Dept. of Natural Resources Health Dept. Mayor Public Works Dept. City Planner Residents NGOs City council Businesses Tribal governments Council of Elders Chief Figure 2. Examples of social actors in cleanups. Community engagement involves working across cultures (National Institutes of Health 2011; U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency 2019). Culture is "the entire pattern of belief and behavior that is learned and shared by people as members of a social group" (Kiefer 2007 p. 4). Elements of culture from anthropology are detailed in Table 3. Culture is expressed in the domestic or social sphere (e.g., where people worship, what they eat for dinner, how they greet one another, what holidays they celebrate). Culture includes foodways, which encompasses the eating habits, culinary practices, and the food and health beliefs of a social group. For anthropologists, it also encompasses governance, institutions, and economic structures and practices. It even includes distinct cultural visions of what 'nature' and 'the environment' are. Ways of understanding culture include examining symbols, material artifacts (food, objects, clothing), narratives and myths, and discourse. Table 3. Elements of Culture Culture Includes Art, Music Livelihoods, Recreation Daily or Seasonal Rhythms Morals, Ethics, Values Discourse, Language Nature Economics, Markets, Property Power, Authority Foodways Race, Ethnicity, Class, Gender Governance Religion, Spiritual Beliefs Health Rituals Kinship Social Norms Knowledge Social Hierarchies ------- Culture is often invisible: within a group, shared understandings are taken for granted while outside that group, they are difficult to explain (U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency 2019). Consider, for example, trying to explain what 'nature' is or what 'property' is to someone outside your culture. It might seem that these concepts have universal meaning, but this is not the case. EPA, state, and local social actors and institutions do not necessarily have the same cultural understanding or worldviews. In cleanups, everyone brings culture to the table - community members, local and state agencies, responsible parties, and EPA. EPA's organizational culture and the culture(s) of its staff affect their approaches to cleanups as well. Cleanups of contaminated sites take place in diverse urban, rural, tribal, and suburban social contexts. The term "community" has many definitions in the literature. Several approaches exist to analyzing community including systems, individual social, or virtual (National Institutes of Health 2011). This report defines community as a group of people that live in the same vicinity (e.g., county, city, neighborhood) or share a common defining characteristic (e.g., online gaming). It approaches community in primarily geographic terms because cleanup practitioners mostly work with affected populations or interested social actors who live in proximity to the site or within the same jurisdiction. A community is not monolithic; rather, it encompasses distinct cultural groups, languages spoken, economic activities, social norms and relationships, and formal and informal governance. A community is also not egalitarian, with factions and groups formed along social hierarchies with varying degrees of power and authority. This diversity of people and places among and within communities underscores the need for cleanup work to include a "social site characterization" alongside an "environmental site characterization." It might be hard, upon arriving on a site, to figure out who 'the community' is. A traditional second line parade commemorates the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Photo credit: Samuel Carr McKay/FEMA 9 ------- Culture and community are interrelated, but not synonymous (National Institutes of Health 2011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002; U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency 2019). A geographic community might contain several cultural groups, and culture affects how individuals and groups relate to one another (National Institutes of Health 2011). A community's sense of place reflects its physical environment and local cultures. Community life is generated and sustained in part through local public, private, and civic organizations, which serve as both cultural mechanisms and decision-making bodies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002). Community organizations take different forms in different places, reflecting underlying social norms, values, and structures. Culture can be thought of as the "social glue" of social groups who have similar ways of understanding the world, thus contributing to a sense of community (U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency 2019). Social site characterization can help EPA unpack the distinct cultural groups in communities nearby a contaminated site. Doing so can help EPA reflect and learn (elements of the SALT framework) about whose voices are being represented, or not, when it hears from community advisory groups (CAGs) or speakers during town hall meetings who assert that they are speaking 'for' the community. Takeawavs about culture and cleanups: 1. Everyone brings culture to the table- even environmental agencies. 2. Environmental agency staff could be considered outsiders to the cultural groups where cleanups take place. 3. Cultural differences can impede cleanups. 4. Conducting culturally informed cleanups can benefit agencies and communities. Conducting cleanups requires working across cultural differences. Cultural differences occur when social actors, including EPA and other environmental agencies, operate under conflicting, often unarticulated assumptions about how the world works and values about what is important. For example, Indigenous Peoples often have deep spiritual and kinship relations with nature. Subsistence fishing and hunting are meaningful practices that support cultural identity, religion, livelihoods, and recreation. Indigenous Peoples also have distinct notions regarding individual and collective property rights such as whether one can 'own' nature. Implementing institutional controls of natural resource use on tribal lands or places with tribal treaty rights requires sovereign relations with federally recognized tribal governments. Working with tribes also requires attention to how seasonal hunting and fishing might affect exposure; recognition of profound differences in worldviews and values about nature, property, and society; as well as 10 ------- attention to how historic injustices and traumas continue to resonate for Indigenous Peoples in the United States today (Cassady 2010; Cirone 2005; Hoover 2017, 2020; Tsosie 2015). Cultural differences can create problems in cleanups and result in frustration or misunderstanding as people talk past one another (U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency 2019). Consider a hypothetical community near a Superfund site with higher-than-average rates of childhood asthma and cancer. Conflicts could arise between community members and government agencies (e.g., EPA, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), state public health or environmental agencies) over whether a disease cluster exists and whether residents are exposed to site contamination. These conflicts are about more than whose interpretation of data is correct or which threshold is best to use. They reflect underlying differences in cultural worldviews about what is disease, what causes disease, what is risky, what is safe, and what constitutes evidence (Layzer 2012; Ottinger and Cohen 2011; Shriver et al. 2008). Agency knowledge of hazards might come from environmental sampling, and their understanding of risk might be informed by probabilistic calculations and toxicological modeling. In contrast, local residents' knowledge of hazards might come from sensory evidence, and their understanding of risk might be informed by lived experiences of danger, trauma, pollution, and care. As such, cleanup work involves acknowledging and addressing these differences in cultural worldviews. While misunderstandings could reflect cultural differences, some parties have more power and authority over remediation and removal decisions than others (Kiessling and Maxwell, forthcoming). Culture, knowledge, and power are intertwined. Being able to bridge cultural differences can reduce misunderstandings and support community engagement strategies that are purposefully inclusive and intended to empower local constituencies. These strategies include but go beyond communication techniques such as using jargon-free terminology and translating from English to other languages that might resonate more with the community. The strategies involve attention to the power dynamics of'whose knowledge counts' when making cleanup decisions (Allen 2007, 2020; Beckett and Keeling 2019; Brown et al. 2020; Clapp et al. 2016; Frickel 2012; Frickel et al. 2009; Hoover 2020; Johnson and Ranco 2011). Doing so involves taking stock of which social actors traditionally were included or excluded. Listening fosters cross-cultural communication. Photo credit: Hans Webb/EEMA 11 ------- What obstacles, such as policies or historical legacies, might hinder local involvement in decision-making? It takes deliberate efforts to involve historically under-represented groups and make sure their voices are heard. Culturally informed cleanups understand and acknowledge cultural differences and attempt to bridge these differences, and can be beneficial to cleanup processes and outcomes (Figure 3). For example, culturally informed cleanups help achieve environmental remediation and redevelopment goals. Culturally informed cleanups also foster integration and achievement of social objectives into cleanup work on equity, EJ, restorative justice, and repair of social relationships (Beckett and Keeling 2019; Tsosie 2015). A culturally-based approach enables participatory decision-making throughout the cleanup process from setting cleanup objectives, to evaluating cleanup effectiveness, to post-cleanup monitoring and land use. Achieve more equitable and environmentally just outcomes, avoiding unintended social consequences Empower diverse local voices in decision- making Enhance institutional awareness of cleanup experiences Address risk perceptions in risk communication. Identify non-risk drivers of human behavior. Build and maintain trust throughout the cleanup process. Find commonalities and accept differences with cultural groups Undertake public engagement in culturally appropriate ways, avoiding cultural stereotypes Figure 3. Benefits of culturally informed cleanups. Culturally informed cleanups can be achieved in many ways. Strategies to do so change depending on the cleanup type and phase. When a National Priorities List site is first listed, the cleanup process might involve listening to local practices of caring for ill neighbors and kin, and emotions about living with toxicity (Delbourne and Galusky 2011; Shriver et al. 2008; Tironi and Rodriguez-Giralt 2017). During emergency response, cleanups might involve 12 ------- decontaminating places that are central to local social and economic life first. Site assessments might involve incorporating evidence from local experts and traditional knowledge holders. Remedy selection might involve constant reassessment of whose voices are being heard and seeking out those who are not. Remedy implementation might involve attending local gatherings and sharing meals. Redevelopment planning might involve making sure that the people drawn into architectural and landscape plans reflect the faces of local populations. The 5-year reviews phase of a Superfund site might involve reporting about people's lived experiences with risk mitigation measures (Little 2012, 2014). The reuse of a brownfield site might mean memorialization of industrial history as well as celebration of nature and ecological restoration of a site (Bluestone 2007; Havlick 2015). Following culturally-informed cleanup practices can help remediation and removals: 1) Empower traditionally under-represented groups into decision-making, incorporating new perspectives and local knowledge. 2) Achieve more equitable outcomes, avoiding unintended social consequences of remediation, removal, and redevelopment. 3) Enhance institutional awareness of how different social actors experience contamination and cleanups. 4) Craft risk communication by identifying non-risk drivers of human behavior and addressing cultural differences in risk perception. 5) Improve community engagement by carrying out culturally appropriate ways of gathering people and communicating. 6) Build trust by uncovering commonalities among social actors, and making sure people's needs are understood and met. Interviews and survey findings show that many EPA staff are undertaking several culturally informed cleanup practices. These practices are not a panacea for reducing all conflicts and securing local buy-in for all cleanup decisions. They can help practitioners navigate complex societal and cultural dynamics to build long-term social relationships and trust. This section demonstrated how cleanups intersect with culture and the potential benefits of culturally informed cleanups. The next section presents the steps for getting to know communities to identify and bridge cultural differences in remediation, removals, and redevelopment. 4.0 How to Get to Know Communities In this section you will learn about: - How to identify community characteristics that might affect cleanup processes - How to prioritize learning about a community - How to find and use a variety of data sources to learn about communities - How to analyze differences across cultures - How to create an ongoing cultural learning plan This methodology has five steps (Figure 4). First, identify key community characteristics to understand their potential relevance to the cleanup process. Second, prioritize learning about the local area, based on the community characteristics and techniques that are most relevant based 13 ------- on the cleanup situation at hand. Third, learn about the community by using quantitative and qualitative information collection, such as talking to community leaders, visiting community gathering places, consulting local online resources, and examining EPA resources and other sources of information. Fourth, analyze the collected information and think about how the cultures involved (including your institutional culture) are similar and on what points they differ Finally, create an ongoing cultural learning plan. The methodology is customizable based on user needs. The following sections detail how you can carry out each of these steps. How to get to know communities Familiarize Familiarize yourself with community characteristics Prioritize learning about the cleanup situation Prioritize Figure 4. Familiarize yourself with community cultural characteristics 4.1 Familiarize yourself with community cultural characteristics Communities are complex, unique, and dynamic. Culture affects community priorities in environmental cleanups and their preference to redevelop. The community and population affected by a contaminated site and by cleanup work is geographically bounded, but that boundary shifts depending on demographic changes, the contaminant plume, and land use. People come in and out of an affected area depending on the time of year or daily work schedules. Developing a deeper understanding of the culture(s) of affected communities and populations can help cleanup practitioners recognize sensitive issues and figure out how to best reduce conflict. This section introduces you to the universe of community cultural characteristics that might affect cleanup processes, outcomes, engagement, and decision-making. Figure 5 lays out categories of these characteristics, which are then discussed in detail. 14 ------- Economy Social Organization Tribal Considerations Community Health Characteristics to Learn About Language, Literacy & Education Geography & Infrastructure Local Governance Demographics Figure 5. Community characteristics of interest Demographics A number of demographic characteristics of a community are important to understand for cleanup work. Race, ethnicity, gender, age, occupation, socioeconomic, and immigration status of individuals and households all affect who is disproportionately affected by contamination and under-represented in decision-making. Enabling participation, addressing equity, and reducing unintended social consequences requires attention to demographic considerations. Homeowners, renters, and people who are unhoused might have different risk exposures and concerns after a flood near a Superfund site. People with disabilities, single parents, non-English speakers, and undocumented residents face distinct obstacles to participating in a town meeting about remedy selection. Residents who are new to the area might not be aware of the history of contamination and need more educational outreach. At the community level, communities might have histories of marginalization, structural racism, and redlining (the presumed practice of mortgage lenders of drawing red lines around portions of a map to indicate areas or neighborhoods, especially those A community meeting in Brighton Beach, N. Y. 15 ------- defined by race, in which they do not want to make loans) that have limited their ability to participate in decisions in their community. Community histories of disenfranchisement and trauma require special attention to equity and recovery throughout the cleanup process. How demographics change overtime is important to understand, making getting to know communities an ongoing endeavor over the course of a cleanup. Demographic characteristics to learn as related to the site include: What are the demographics in neighborhoods most affected by contamination? What are social vulnerabilities that might affect how people are impacted by an incident Issues that arise when working with rental households: Agency access to the property Renter entry to retrieve belongings in a disaster Fair treatment during resettlement Economy Understanding the local economy of the community means knowing who are the key employers in the area, how dependent are people on natural resources for their livelihoods, and what redevelopment opportunities are available. This provides information about what people in the community value and what they depend upon to make a living. It can provide a framework for addressing short-term priorities and long-term goals, such as effects upon property values, local jobs, and gentrification. In the short-term, understanding the local economy helps prioritize which areas to open back up to the public faster than others. It can identify who might be exposed to contaminants from a site (through current or former occupational exposure, or natural resource use for livelihoods, subsistence, or recreation). In the long-term, economic information can help align response and redevelopment with community needs, ensuring that environmental cleanup activities and post-redevelopment land uses provide local benefits (e.g., through procurement, jobs, property values) and strengthen communities for the future. Understanding the historic and current local economy helps anticipate and address social dynamics that might play out at public meetings or at CAG meetings. Economic characteristics to learn as related to the site include: Is it a former mine that was central to local livelihoods? Is it a brownfield where there might be anticipation of getting a positive benefit from it? Is the responsible party a major taxpayer? 16 ------- Geography and Infrastructure Identifying key geographic features in the community can be helpful for understanding what landmarks are important to locals and their sense of place, and what areas are heavily used. For example, which key places contribute to the community's identity, e.g., nature preserves, museums, or malls? Answers give clues about local priorities for cleanup or redevelopment. Community members might have attachments to places despite, or even because of, histories of contamination. For example, a factory in a small town might be an important part of the community's history because it created jobs. Community members might want to memorialize the site, rather than removing all trace of what the site was used for in the past. Getting to know the geography also involves learning the boundaries of a site - who uses the area and who is the affected population. This information might not be immediately apparent but is an important to consider when developing communication plans. Another aspect of geography is learning about infrastructure, such as the age of buildings. This information can point to considerations in the cleanup action plan such as lead and asbestos that might constitute parts of older structures. Details about critical infrastructure is also important, such as public transportation systems, evacuation routes, and school locations. If a cleanup action will disrupt critical infrastructure, it is essential to notify the community and establish alternatives. Another aspect of getting to know the geography is seasonality - how the location changes throughout the year. Examples of seasonal changes include fluctuations in population due to tourism, annual festivals, or academic calendars. Another consideration is how geographic characteristics such as settlement patterns (e.g., urbanization), land use, and climate might change over time. Will a reuse plan that recommends a site become a wildlife refuge still make sense in twenty years? Geographic and infrastructure characteristics to learn for planning remediation include: What are key local landmarks or critical infrastructure to prioritize for cleanup? What are school schedules and bus routes? Is the site in the center of town or an isolated property locals might not be aware exists? 17 ------- Health Learning about local health and healthcare trends gives valuable insights for cleanups. This involves investigating traditional epidemiological topics such as exposure and population health, as well as lesser known topics. Living alongside pollution and toxicity affects people's emotions and mental health and can contribute to individual and collective trauma. Trauma might make it harder for those suffering to make decisions and take action, which can affect the success of community engagement. Some population subgroups might be more vulnerable to suffering the effects of contamination, and consequently might need more attention and specialized care. Children at play, for example, might be at greater risk of exposure to physical and chemical hazards in abandoned buildings, waste rock piles, or pits. Also, some populations (often women) might already be undertaking care of affected household or community members, as part of paid jobs or unpaid domestic labor. Attention to these local practices of care is part of health, as are more standard health and healthcare metrics (e.g., asthma rates, hospital capacity). Health characteristics to learn as related to a contaminated site include: What sensory information and health symptoms do locals associate with the site- foul odors, trouble breathing, discolored water? What ideas do different constituencies have about what is causing local health problems (e.g., contamination, individual choice, inadequate health care)? What are the mental health, stress, and emotional aspects of contamination? Language, Literacy, and Education Knowing local language practices entails attention to spoken and written language preferences as well as communication networks and media. Providing materials in local languages improves comprehension and builds trust. Knowing how people get their news, what they know about local hazards, who talks with whom, how they share information, what literacy and education levels are, and what types of media they consume are also relevant. This information will help you to devise an effective communication plan to reduce cross-cultural mi sunderstandings. People, including environmental mangers and community members, have different knowledge of hazards and cultural understandings of risk, based on personal experiences, level of education, and social networks. Understanding how culture affects perception, knowledge, and acceptance Interview Insight: "People don't necessarily get their news and information by watching the tv or online or listening to the radio. A lot of people in various sectors of the community get their information through word of mouth, or going to church, or talking to neighbors." 18 ------- of risks is important for developing culturally appropriate risk communication. Language, literacy, and education characteristics to learn include media interest in the site: Has there been local or national news coverage? Is there likely to be coverage given the underlying environmental or health concern (e.g., drinking water, children's health)? Is misinformation or disinformation being perpetuated? Local Governance Governance encompasses political arrangements, organizations, and systems of decision-making, accountability, and rules. Local governance involves the formal and informal mechanisms by which different social actors and organizations have power and authority for making decisions. Formal local governance includes municipal departments, voting, and the courts. Informal local governance includes heads of faith groups, customary tribal leaders, foundations that give grants for improvement projects, or neighborhood watches. Knowing who the community looks to for leadership is important for building trust and can be useful when establishing a CAG. Understanding power dynamics and decision-making authority helps you figure out how to give voice to under-represented groups. It can also help you understand the formal and informal ways decisions get made at the local level. Additionally, cleanup practitioners can get a sense of how power, authority, and conflict play out among different levels of governance, including how these dynamics affect people's perspectives about disempowerment and their attitudes towards institutions. Local governance characteristics to learn include the history of management of the site: Participatory decision-making in action. What has been done on the site to date, and by which parties? Was there local activism for listing the site on the National Priorities List? How much interest do elected officials (local to national) express in the site? Social Organization Communities are not egalitarian. Social structures affect the distribution of risk and rewards related to contamination and environmental cleanups. Social hierarchies exist in formal and informal organizations. Attention to social organization can explain controversies over technical decisions about cleanup levels or reuse. Cleanup practitioners can plan outreach and engagement more easily if they know where social groups already gather and who associates with whom. They can be more certain that segments of the community are heard and represented. This information is useful throughout a cleanup. Knowing about the local social organizations can help you to realize which constituencies you have not yet reached and where you might conduct 19 ------- outreach. Ask about whether you would be welcome at special events - community night out, Memorial Day parades, or chili cookoffs. Social organization characteristics to learn include social mobilization about the site: Was there existing local activism around the site, or did news about contamination at come as a surprise? Do groups mobilizing about the site represent the community as a whole? What are differences in these groups' tactics, power, and agency (or capacity to act)? Tribal Considerations Indigenous Peoples often have unique socio-cultural characteristics that are important to consider. Federally recognized tribes have sovereign government-to-government relations with the U.S. government, meaning that they have their own authority to make certain decisions and determinations in environmental management. Non-federally recognized tribes might also have local authority that requires acknowledgement and respect. Indigenous People and other local or mobile groups are increasingly recognized as rights holders rather than stakeholders, as they have customary or treaty rights over natural resources, sacred sites, grazing lands, and other places. Tribes are not monolithic entities, so getting to know a community includes Indigenous Peoples living outside of a federal reservation or other Indian lands, as well as residents of these areas who are not tribal members. Cleanup processes might operate differently in Indian Country. Building relations with tribal groups often takes extra time and care; it is created and sustained through personal connections and face-to-face interactions. Indigenous Peoples might have different connections to their environment, such as placing spiritual significance to flora/fauna or ancestral lands or having kinship connections with nature. Such culturally specific values and needs might affect exposure pathways, local priorities for remediation or redevelopment, and access to property and permissions. Cleanup practitioners might need to include indigenous knowledge as part of the data that informs site assessment or remedy selection and tribal representatives in cleanup decisions and work. However, care must be taken to be respectful of cultural boundaries on information and data sharing. Indigenous Peoples might be more hesitant to share knowledge because of traumatic histories with government agencies, causing distrust. They might also limit access to certain information to preserve their privacy or sacred landscapes. Tribal considerations to learn as related to the site are: How does the site relate to traditional hunting, grazing, or fishing grounds, agricultural lands, and other places central to livelihoods and economic activities?? What are tribe-specific histories of trauma or current crises (e.g., forced relocation, Indian boarding schools, opioid addiction)? Another helpful point to consider is how some of these characteristics intersect. For example, what is the ratios of renters to homeowners on tribal lands? How does local activism about a site reflect existing social organization? This universe of community cultural characteristics related to environmental cleanups might seem daunting at first. The more you familiarize yourself with these characteristics in the abstract, the more you will start to see them in action in the places you work. The next section helps you identify a strategy to prioritize cultural learning about these characteristics given the cleanup situation and community at hand. 20 ------- 4.2 Prioritize learning about local characteristics for a given cleanup situation The previous section introduced cleanup practitioners to the universe of community cultural characteristics that could be relevant to cleanup work. As interviewees told the research team, though, all cleanups are different. Learning about every single community characteristic for every site is not possible for practitioners with limited time and resources nor is it necessary. This section describes parameters of the cleanup situation that affect which community characteristics are most important to understand. Cleanup practitioners can apply these parameters to their site to establish criteria for which characteristics to focus on and how in- depth their local learning needs to be. They can then select techniques for getting to know their community that are likely to yield the best results per time and resource investment. Three sets of parameters include: about the site, about remediation or removal work, and about social and institutional issues. Examples of each are: Contaminated site 1) Property rights. Do cleanup workers need to do sampling or other work on private property? 2) Size/ intensity of an incident. These work in tandem. For example, a mercury spill could be relatively small, affecting a single building. If it occurs on school grounds, though, intensity will increase as children's health is often a critical local concern. 3) Certainty/ uncertainty of the hazard. Is it an emerging contaminant about which little is known? An accidental release of an unknown mix of chemicals? A brownfield, which might not contain contaminants at levels that present a risk to human health? 4) Proximity to local/ national attraction. For example, the fire in the Notre Dame garnered international attention. 5) Proximity to residences. How close is the site to residential areas? 6) Extent of contamination. What is the known, anticipated, or modeled mobility and distribution of the contamination? 7) Visibility of contamination. Is there a visible plume of smoke? Have there been reports of odors in their drinking water? Or is it a largely hidden groundwater plume? Projected impacts of remediation/ removal 1) Length of time on site. How long is a cleanup expected to take days, months, years? 2) Extent/ intensity of anticipated remedial or removal action. Might vapor intrusion mitigation need to be located inside homes or businesses? Are household contents salvageable after the accidental release of a biological or chemical agent? 3) Relocation, resettlement, or evacuation. The greater the likelihood of these needing to happen, the greater the need to understand household and neighborhood dynamics. Social and institutional issues 1) Existing site-related concerns. What has your organization already heard from local residents? Is there already activism about the site? 2) Environmental justice considerations. Does the community have EJ concerns outside of this immediate site? 21 ------- 3) Community involvement requirements. Are there specific requirements for community involvement based on the regulatory framework? These parameters are interrelated. For example, a site close to residential areas might be likelier to require sampling on private properties and involve remedial actions that affect local populations. Depending on the situation, cleanup practitioners might find it more useful to concentrate on certain community characteristics and information sources. Knowing the languages spoken is useful for all cleanup types as translating materials for risk communication is necessary, even during emergencies. Attention to governance is especially relevant for brownfields, to ascertain local capacities for applying for and managing grants and technical assistance. Table 4 shows examples of the range of time and resource investments for understanding community characteristics. The data sources listed in the table are detailed in Section 4.3. Table 4. Least to Most Intensive Learning Efforts Community characteristic Least Intensive Most Intensive Demographics Look at a few maps on EJSCREEN Multiple data fields at census block level; Community block assessment Economy Census Business Builder In-depth interviews; community survey Geography & Infrastructure Google Earth; transect walk Photovoice; participatory mapping Health Public health department data Health Impact Assessment Tribal Considerations Talk with tribal leaders; My Tribal Area (U.S. Census) In-depth interviews; participatory mapping; photovoice Language, Literacy, Education Census Business Builder Community survey Local Governance Talk with department heads Talk with informal community leaders Social Organization Social media In-depth interviews EJSCREEN, Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool Using this section in conjunction with section 4.1 will help practitioners prioritize which community characteristics are most important to learn about to consider for a given cleanup situation. It is not possible to delve deeply into each of these cultural characteristics but going through the parameters listed in this section can help identify the most important characteristics that might have the greatest impact on the cleanup process. For example, if the community has existing EJ concerns, learning about local health factors, economic trends, and/or governance might be most relevant. If the community has a large population of non-English speakers, it is important to explore more about language, literacy, and education. Cleanup practitioners do not have to have all the answers but can get an idea of what questions to ask and what areas to explore. The next section provides strategies and tools to find those answers in a given location. 4.3 Learn about a specific community As there are many ways to learn about a community, the search for data can be overwhelming and time-consuming. The research team has learned that there are a variety of techniques EPA cleanup practitioners use to learn about a community. To simplify the process, Figure 6 shows the breakdown of ways to learn about a community. This section explains each of these steps and provides more in depth information on learning about communities and cultures by borrowing from qualitative research techniques. The research team acknowledges that not every 22 ------- cleanup scenario may allow time for each of these steps, especially in an emergency response situation, which why this methodology is customizable. If time does not allow, cleanup practitioners may choose pieces of these steps to start with, or go back to specific steps as part of an ongoing learning and engagement process. o Demographics o Census data o Google maps o Property values Site- Specific Documents Community Involvement Plan Exposure assessments Other ongoing cleanups Learning About a Community o EPA personnel (e.g., CICs, RPMs, OSCs) o EJ Screen o Fact sheets EPA I Community Resources I Resources Local officials and leaders Visit or drive through community Internet & local news Figure 6. Ways to learn about a community. 4.3.1 By the Numbers Quantitative data can provide numeric and statistical information on specific geographic areas (e.g., city, county). Table 5 provides examples of data sources that provide quantitative data about different community characteristics. Some of these sources were identified during the research team's interview and surveys, while others were added to provide more coverage of community characteristics. The sources listed in Table 5 are national in scope, but state or county-level data sources might also be relevant. State health departments, for example, often compile statistics on community health and health care. State natural resource departments might have geospatial tree canopy or land cover data. Table 5. Quantitative Data Sources Data source Links Community What does it tell you Suggested variables characteristics to look at Census Business Builder https://www.ee nsus.gov/data/d ata- tools/ebb.html Demographics Economy Language, literacy, & education Selected demographic and economic data from the U.S. Census and American Community Survey, Renter occupied housing units Percent people in poverty Number of farm operations My Tribal Area (U.S. Census Bureau) https://www.ee nsus.gov/tribal/ Demographics Tribal considerations American Community Survey data on tribal area demographics, job info, housing data, economy. Total population with a disability 23 ------- Number renter- occupied housing units Computer and internet use Educational attainment CDC Social Vulnerability Index https://www.ats dr.cdc.eov/plac eandhealth/svi/i ndex.html Demographics Economy Language, literacy, & education Health Geography & infrastructure Uses U.S. Census data to identify social vulnerability by tracking 15 social indicators. Can aid emergency preparedness and response. Socioeconomic status Household composition Race/ ethnicity/ language Housing/ transportation Center for Applied Research and Engagement Systems Map Room https://careshq. org/ Health Demographics Economy Geography & infrastructure Mapping tool to visualize data layers at different scales. County health data might be particularly useful. Adult obesity Adult smoking Adults with poor or fair health Physical inactivity 4.3.2 Site-Specific Documents The second way of learning about a community is by examining existing, site-specific documents. The site might already have a current community involvement plan. Additionally, you might find information by looking at details about other sites in the same locale, such as an online description of a brownfields grant awarded, or reports about other removal actions taken by OSCs in the region. 4.3.3. Community Resources One of the best ways to find out information is by consulting community resources. Doing so includes talking with local leaders, identifying important gathering places to engage the public and other community members, perusing community-generated websites, listservs, and other online networks, and reading local documents (Figure 7). 24 ------- Talk with local leaders Mayor City council member Sheriff or fire chief Tribal council or elders Librarian School principal Emergency managers Historical society director Business leaders/Chamber of Commerce Non-profit workers Find local gathering places Libraries Parks Restaurants Places of worship Community recreation center Barber shops/salons Festivals or special events Social clubs/community organizations Rotary club Check out local online networks Community message boards Facebook pages Neighborhood or Parent Teacher Association listservs City websites Community organizations' Instagram posts Twitter posts Read local documents Archival materials (e.g., newspapers, maps, photos) Municipal/regional planning documents Local publications (e.g., gazette, newsletters, flyers) Figure 7. Community resources. 1) Find and talk to local leaders (formal and informal) Community leaders might be officials, such as the mayor and sheriff, or unofficial knowledge holders and cultural leaders, such as elders, university professors, and faith leaders. Talking to community leaders is a good way to introduce yourself, get to know about local characteristics, and begin to establish trust. They can connect you to local resources and point you to other people with whom to talk. Depending on what cleanup actions need to take place, different leaders might be appropriate to approach. For example, if the cleanup requires detouring traffic, talk to the sheriff and city planner. If cleanup actions will impact school bus routes, then talk to the school superintendent and principal. Asking questions of community leaders is one step in getting to know key community characteristics, but it should not be the only source of information. One technique to find and connect with local populations is to use culture brokers who can bridge local and agency cultures (U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency 2019). Non-profit or community-based organizations are one place to find culture brokers as they know local issues and their staff often are residents themselves. 2) Locate important gathering places Finding where people come together and socialize can also teach you a lot about a community. It teaches you what landmarks are important to people's daily life - what businesses they frequent and what places they value. It can also be an opportunity to talk with community members and listen to their interests and concerns. In the authors' research, EPA cleanup practitioners mentioned that they find gathering places by walking around the community, immersing themselves in daily life, and attending events (like festivals and community meetings). 3) Check out local online networks Another valuable source of information about a community is online resources, including social media platforms, local news sites, and community websites. As more and more of society's socializing goes virtual, this can be a way to get timely updates about what is going on in different neighborhoods and with different social groups (e.g., youth, immigrants). Talking with community members can also tell you if online 25 ------- platforms are the preferred route of information and news sharing, as many EPA cleanup practitioners mentioned. Knowing what platforms people use to get their information can be useful when trying to share cleanup action updates with the public. 4) Read local documents Reading local documents such as old newspapers and maps can also reveal a lot about a community. It provides a strong historical perspective that could give insight into local priorities and values. Understanding local histories might also shed light on past traumas that a community might have experienced, such as disasters, which could impact present day vulnerabilities. 4.3.4 EPA Resources EPA offers many tools and applications that can be useful in getting to know a community. EPA cleanup practitioners highlighted EJSCREEN, EnviroAtlas, and the CIC Community Profile Tool, among others (see Table 6, also Appendix A). They also underscored the importance of talking with colleagues who might have experience working in similar communities, as well as mentors. In fact, one of the top ways that EPA cleanup practitioners learn about communities is through informal knowledge-sharing networks. An EPA resource that can be used for more in-depth analysis of a community is a Health Impact Assessment (see Appendix A). A Health Impact Assessment is a tool designed to investigate how a proposed program, project, policy, or plan might impact health and well-being and to inform decision-makers of these potential outcomes before the decision is made. Table 6. EPA Resources Data source Links Community characteristics What does it tell you Suggested data variables/layers to look at EJSCREEN https://www.eDa. g ov/ei screen Tutorials/Support CIC Community Profile Tool or https://www.epa. g Demographics Health Geography & infrastructure Provides data on EJ indices of environmental & demographic indicators. Identify areas with minority &/or low-income populations & potential environmental quality issues. Compare to nationwide trends. Tribal areas Location of schools Location of public housing People of color population ov/ ei screen/under standing-ei screen- results EnviroAtlas https://www.epa. g Health Geography & infrastructure Provides geospatial data on ecosystem services, human health chemical & non- chemical stressors. Data at national scale, also for select localities. Estimated floodplains Residential density Hazardous waste sites ov/enviroatlas Tutorials/Support https://www.epa. g ov/enviroatlas/tut orials CIC, community involvement coordinator; EJ, environmental justice; EJSCREEN, Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool 26 ------- 4.3.5 Qualitative Techniques for More In-depth Cultural Learning Gathering information from documents, EPA and community resources might require the collection of qualitative data. Qualitative data can be a rich, detailed source of information, providing answers for different types of questions as compared to quantitative data. It can be used as a stand-alone method, or to complement quantitative data. It can help discover the "hows" and the "whys" to questions - revealing context behind people's behaviors and decisions. Table 7 provides methods for gathering qualitative data about local communities and cultures and examples of the type of information each method can provide. These methods can be used as part of building relationships and conducting community engagement activities as well as gathering information to learn about a community. Example interview questions: What issues are you concerned about in your community? What places are important to you? Where do you get your news? How has your community changed since you have lived here? Table 7. Qualitative Data Sources Method Description Community characteristics What can it tell you Helpful resources* Interviews Asking open-ended questions to members of the community/social actors. All Detailed historical and other contextual information, data on emotions, behaviors, decisions, and opinions. Community Involvement Handbook and Loolkit Interview Lool (See Appendix A) Participatory mapping Local individuals or groups map features based on personal spatial knowledge. Geography & infrastructure Social organization Local landmarks, key attractions, travel routes, critical infrastructure, identity, sense of place. (IFAD 2009) Photovoice projects Community members take and share pictures of their surroundings to document and communicate issues. Economy Geography & infrastructure Health Social organization Empower residents, facilitate dialogue, and raise awareness about local values and struggles. (Aberet al. 2017) Site tours Community members take a guided tour of a cleanup area. Geography & infrastructure Health Build trust with community members; collect feedback on remediation strategies. Community Involvement Handbook (See Appendix A) Survey s/Que stionnaires Asking pre-selected questions (often closed- ended) to social actors. All Data on opinions and decisions. Usually provides quantitative data. https ://www.nn group, c om/articles/qualitative- survevs/ Table-top exercises A session or workshop where key social actors come together to discuss how they would respond in a given scenario. All Information on how people make decisions; local knowledge, priorities, vulnerabilities, power dynamics. (Dausey et al. 2007) 27 ------- Transect walks A walk along a pre- defined route through the community. En route, map key features, talk with people, record behavioral observations. Demographics Economy Geography & infrastructure Social organization Introduce yourself, build rapport. Discover topics of concern and places of importance. Observe how people interact with surroundings. https://'catcomm. org/tra n sect-walk/ *Refences are at the end of the report. 4.4 Analyze for cross-cultural understanding Analyzing the information collected helps transform it from discrete data points into a more comprehensive picture of the community that can form a basis for cross-cultural understanding. This section describes practices for data collection, management, and analysis adapted from qualitative research. To start, enact principles for data collection, management, and analysis (Chambers 1981; Merriam and Tisdell 2015; Tracy 2013): Triangulate data. Acknowledge that people are experts in their own experiences. Be open to the unexpected. Do no harm. Triangulating data is using multiple approaches and sources of information to address the same question, enabling data quality (Chambers 1981; Merriam and Tisdell 2015; Tracy 2013). You can triangulate among different types of data, e.g., interview, demographic, economic, and observational. For example, to learn about languages spoken in the community, triangulate data among official Census statistics (which might be up to a decade old), survey of library collection holdings, and city council members' responses about the languages their constituents speak. When doing so, you might be tempted to consider official statistics as more valid than information comingfrom local voices. Try not to give in! Acknowledging that people are experts in their own experiences and being open to the unexpected allows cleanup practitioners to come to know cultural worldviews and practices in a deeper way. It entails testing one's own assumptions about how the world works as a means of identifying and bridging cultural differences. This might lead to personal or organizational culture change. For example, if people share their concerns about health symptoms that they associate with a contaminated site, it might be tempting to categorize these data as less reliable than an ATSDR report about exposure and health. Keep in mind that the objective is to understand culture, rather than corroborate evidence. Instead, continue to probe why this discrepancy exists. Doing so can help deepen your understanding of local cultureand of ATSDR's culture. Analyzing different types of data, particularly social data, might be outside of your expertise. One solution is partnering or consulting with someone who has social science training, particularly in designing and implementing mixed methods research. Local consulting groups, non-profits, or colleges might be able to provide the support you need if you are feeling thrown outside of your comfort zone. These types of collaborations are also an opportunity to build trust within the community, showcasing local knowledge and expertise. Culture change is when a social actor, cultural group, or organization shifts their behavior, values, or practices. 28 ------- A central tenet of this methodology is to "do no harm" in collecting, managing, and sharing community characteristics data. Following this research ethic builds trust, enhances the quality of the information obtained, and protects populations of concern (Fossey et al. 2002; Merriam and Tisdell 2015; Reynolds et al. 2011; Tracy 2013). It requires taking steps to protect the privacy of individuals and confidentiality of data, such as saving online documents on a private organizational server in a password-protected document. Doing so helps ensure that information, including your own observations and reflections, is not inadvertently shared or used against community members. It is particularly important for preventing further risks to marginalized or socially vulnerable populations (e.g., unhoused residents or undocumented immigrants). Doing no harm means ensuring that the form and content of questions asked are sensitive to historic traumas, disasters, or systematic racism. Another component of this ethical approach is to accept when people do not want to share information (e.g., about sacred sites). Employees of regulatory agencies might need to frame questions and explain their role as distinct from enforcement. To address these data security and ethical considerations, you should have a data security plan and communicate that plan to the community. Where tribal groups are involved, make sure you respect Indigenous data sovereignty (Carroll et al. 2019). Depending on the techniques selected, the data gathered might be in different formats and file locations (e.g., EJSCREEN map, notes from talking with city departments, digital photos, Census data layers). You might want to keep it a record of what you did in a single folder or file to be able to pass it along to anyone who comes to work on the site afterward. You will have a set of discrete data points, for instance: the majority of male and female high school students are on the swimming team, forty percent of houses in the area around the site are vacant, there are Tuesday evening concerts at the outdoor bandstand, traffic decisions are made by the county not the city, and the city took in $1 million in business tax revenue. How to begin to make meaning of all this information? How to analyze these diverse pieces of data to begin to form an understanding of local communities, cultures, and affected populations? A starting point is to have questions in mind that you want to know more about, related to the community characteristics or elements of culture. Are you more interested in: learning about people's experiences living with contamination? becoming aware of formal governance structures and processes? knowing what languages people speak and where they get their local news? understanding whose voices are underrepresented? What are you trying to accomplish with the informationidentifying locations for holding a town hall meeting or soliciting input for equitable redevelopment options? An important point to remember is that even non-social data, such as climate and ecological health, can be analyzed using a social lens. This means that you can extract cultural 29 ------- understanding from the data. It comes down to the types of questions you are asking and connections you are exploring. One technique that qualitative researchers use is to code data or tag it with phrases that correspond with themes (Merriam and Tisdell 2015; Tracy 2013). Coding can be done using specialized qualitative analysis software (e.g., Dedoose, NVivo, AtlasTi), or using other software for working on a spreadsheet or written document. Borrowing from design, a less intensive option is to synthesize information using a visual whiteboard (see https://the-lab-at- opm.github.io/HCD-Discoverv-Operations-Guide/svnthesisY As you might need to update the data collected, depending on how long you are at a site, you might also want to revisit your analysis to continue to challenge your assumptions. For example, if you are interested in local power dynamics, you could begin to code data in a spreadsheet using tags such as "power," "participation," "voice," or "local politics." You could tag photos, excerpts from interviews, or tweets. By examining all data tagged with a code, you can begin to identify patterns in how local governance, demographics, and social organization intersect. 4.5 Create an ongoing cultural learning plan The final step of the methodology is creating a plan for ongoing cultural learning and self- reflection. Some points about a community are essential to know before you arrive at a site; others you can learn along the way (Figure 8). The research team interviewees explained that learning and trust-building is ongoing. Communities are not static, and people need sustained engagement. You might need to return to "getting to know the community" strategies repeatedly. Sites that have been in remediation for years might see extensive local demographic or economic change. A cultural learning plan addresses gathering new data as well as updating and re- analyzing data you already collected. It includes time for self-reflection about your organizational culture, how cross-cultural interactions are going, or changes in your cultural perspective: are there gaps in risk communication strategies? What cultural assumptions are built into risk assessments? Is organizational structure limiting interactions? Remember, organizations have their own culture and social networks, just like a community! Your ongoing learning plan is also where you want to map out specific community engagement strategies. You will need to establish long-term points of contact in the community, plan a schedule for regular updates to community groups, and identify partners who might take over project leadership in the future. You should adjust these plans as time goes on, based on progress and feedback. Check which demographic groups are attending meetings and tailor messages accordingly. For cleanup work that is very short term, having an ongoing cultural learning plan may be less about a particular site, and more about continuing to practice techniques that are most appropriate for rapid response situations and deepening an understanding of cultural characteristics generally. 30 ------- Know before you go Once you get onsite Identify boundaries of the contaminated site and affected community Review any existing reports about site identify colleagues who may help Prepare for special communication needs (e.g., non-English speaking community members) Visit local officials and city departments Identify and talk with informal community leaders Visit local knowledge keepers (e.g., librarians, professors) Ongoing learning Attend annual cultural events Reflect on cross-cultural interactions and re-assess community characteristics data Establish contacts for ongoing communication Figure 8. Cultural learning plan. 31 ------- 5.0 Summary and Conclusion This report contains a rationale and methodology for getting to know affected communities, cultures, and affected populations to carry out site assessment, removal and remediation planning and actions, and redevelopment of contaminated or potentially contaminated sites. The methodology was produced by synthesizing techniques from the applied social and social- environmental sciences, a literature review, practices used by EPA cleanup practitioners researched through interviews and surveys, and techniques highlighted in EPA resources for community and public involvement. One caveat is that this methodology is not a substitute for in-depth, ethnographic research. Truly getting to know a community or culture is a long-term endeavor. Nor is getting to know communities a panacea for reducing all conflicts, securing local buy-in for remedy selection, or changing behaviors around risk and exposure. Following the steps laid out in this methodology supports culturally informed cleanups. The steps are customizable to the cleanup situation at hand. It lays the groundwork for community engagement, participatory decision-making, environmental justice, and equitable and positive social and environmental outcomes. 32 ------- References Aber A, Waxman N, Khatib A et al. (2017) Use of photovoice to highlight environmental justice issues: The power of photography in Buzzard Point, Washington, D.C. Environmental Justice 10(2):36-42. https://doi.org/10.1089/env..^I L Allen BL (2003) Uneasy Alchemy: Citizens and Experts in Louisiana's Chemical Corridor Disputes. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Allen BL (2007) Environmental justice, local knowledge, and after-disaster planning in New Orleans. Technology in Society 29(2): 153-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.techsoc.2007.01.003 Allen BL (2020) Making effective participatory environmental health science through collaborative data analysis, in Davies T, Mah A (eds.) Toxic Truths: Environmental Justice and Citizen Science in a Global Age. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK, pp. 59-81. Ando R (2018) Trust- What connects science to daily life. Health Physics 115(5):581-589. https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.000000000000Q945 Auyero J, Swistun D (2008) The Social Production of Toxic Uncertainty. American Sociological Review 73 (3):357-79. https://doi.orE >00312240807300301 Beckett C, Keeling A (2019) Rethinking remediation: Mine reclamation, environmental justice, and relations of care. Local Environment 24(3):216-230. https://doi.org/10.108Q/13549839-in- i i_ Bluestone D (2007) Toxic sites as places of culture and memory: Adaptive management for citizenship, in Macey GP, Cannon JZ (eds.) Reclaiming the Land: Rethinking Superfund Institutions, Methods and Practices. Springer, New York, pp. 245-266. Brown P, de la Rosa V, Cordner A (2020) Toxic grespass: Science, activism, and policy concerning chemicals in our bodies, in Davies T, Mah A (eds.) Toxic Truths: Environmental Justice and Citizen Science in a Global Age. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK, pp. 34-598. Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Grove MJ (2006) Integrative approaches to investigating human- natural systems: the The Baltimore ecosystem study. Natures Sciences Societes 14(1):4-14. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.105 l/nss:2006002 Carroll SR, Rodriguez-Lonebear D, Martinez A (2019) Indigenous Data Governance: Strategies from United States Native Nations. Data Science Journal 18(31): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsi-2019-Q31 Cassady J (2010) State calculations of cultural survival in environmental risk assessment: Consequences for Alaska Natives. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 24(4):451-471. https://doi.org/10 I I I I 1 I - IS-1387.2010 01 I llvx Chambers R (1981) Rapid rural appraisal: Rationale and repertoire. Public Administration and Development 1 (2):95-106. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230010202\ Chambers R (1994) Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development 22(10): 1437-1454. https://doi.org/ 5/0305-750X(94')90030-2 33 ------- Charnley S, Engelbert B (2005) Evaluating public participation in environmental decision- making: EPA's superfund community involvement program. Journal of Environmental Management 77(3): 165-182. https://dot.org/10 J 016/i jenvman.2005.04.002 Checker M (2005) Polluted Promises: Environmental Racism and the Search for Justice in a Southern Town. NYU (New York University) Press, New York. Cheong S-M, Hazelwood E (2015) Insularity and oil spill response in Grand Isle. GeoJournal 80(5):679-687. https://doi.org/ )8~014-9570~x Cirone P (2005) The integration of tribal traditional lifeways into EPA's decision making. Practicing Anthropology 27(n:20-24. https://doi.on 10 I 730/praj : 10 II 'w8788g48h5 Clapp JT, Roberts JA, Dahlberg B et al. (2016) Realities of environmental toxicity and their ramifications for community engagement. Social Science and Medicine 170:143-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/i .socscimed.20 I 10 0 r" Dausey DJ, Buehler JW, Lurie N (2007) Designing and conducting tabletop exercises to assess public health preparedness for manmade and naturally ocurring biological threats. BMC Public Health 7(92V https://doi.org/i 0. i i 86/1 I I . IA-7-92 Delbourne J, Galusky W (2011) Toxic transformations: Constructing online audiences for environmental justice, in Ottinger G, Cohen BR (eds.) Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 63-92. Eisenhauer E, Williams KC, Warren C et al. (2021) New Directions in Environmental Justice Research at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Incorporating Recognitional and Capabilities Justice Through Health Impact Assessments. Environmental Justice 0(0): 1-10. http://doi.org/10.1089/env.2021.0019 Ferri D (1994) Communities of color and hazardous waste cleanup: Expanding public participation in the federal Superfund program. Fordham Urban Law Journal 21:671-688. Force JE, Machlis GE (1997) The human ecosystem Part II: Social indicators in ecosystem management. Society & Natural Resources 10(4):369-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419297093 8103 5 Fossey E, Harvey C, McDermott F et al. (2002) Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 36(6):717-732. https://doi.org/10.1046, | I I 10 I II .002 01 k\\x Frickel S (2012) Missing New Orleans: Tracking knowledge and ignorance through an urban hazardscape. in Foote S, Mazzolini E (eds.) Histories of the Dustheap: Waste, Material Cultures, Social Justice. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 97-117. Frickel S, Campanella R, Vincent MB (2009) Mapping knowledge investments in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: A new approach for assessing regulatory agency responses to environmental disaster. Environmental Science and Policy 12(2): 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/i. envsci.2008.11.006 34 ------- Gramling, R, Freudenburg WR (1992) Opportunity-threat, development, and adaptation: toward a comprehensive framework for social impact assessment. Rural Sociology 57(2):216-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.l 549-0831.1992.tb00464.x Havlick DG (20156) Restoration, history, and values at transitioning military sites in the United States, in Hourdequin M, Havlick DG (eds.) Restoring Layered Landscapes: History, Ecology, and Culture. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 160-182. Hoover E (2017) The River is In Us: Fighting Toxics in a Mohawk Community. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hoover E (2020) Whose citizenship in "citizen science"? Tribal identity, civic dislocation, and environmental health research, in Davies T, Mah A (eds.) Toxic Truths: Environmental Justice and Citizen Science in a Global Age. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK. pp. 243- 266. IF AD (2009) Good practices in participatory mapping. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, Italy, p. 55. Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment (2003) Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21 (3):231-250. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766293 Johnson J, Ranco D (2011) Risk assessment and Native Americans at the cultural crossroads: Making better science or redefining health? in Ottinger G, Cohen B (eds.) Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 179-200. Kiefer CW (2007) Doing Health Anthropology: Research Methods for Community Assessment and Change. Springer, New York. Kiessling B, Maxwell K (2021) Conceptualizing and capturing outcomes of environmental cleanup at contaminated sites. Environment and Society 12(1): 164-180. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2C Kiessling B, Maxwell K, Buckley JA (2021) The sedimented social histories of environmental cleanups: An ethnography of social and institutional dynamics. Journal of Environmental Management 278(2): 111530. https://doi.Hv 10 101 5/i.ienvman.20.0 III*' '<0, Kim EJ, Kang Y (2019) Relationship among pollution concerns, attitudes toward social problems, and environmental perceptions in abandoned sites using Bayesian inferential analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26(8):8007-8018. https://doi.org/10.1007, Lange DA, McNeil S (2004) Brownfield development: Tools for stewardship. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 130(2): 109-116. https://doi.org, >1/(ASCEX)733- 9488(201 2(109) Layzer J (2012) The Environmental Case: Translating Values into Policy. CQ Press, Washington, DC. 35 ------- Little PC (2012) Another angle on pollution experience: Toward an anthropology of the emotional ecology of risk mitigation. Ethos 40(4):431-452. https://doi.ors 18- >9.x Little PC (2014) Toxic Town: IBM, Pollution and Industrial Risks. New York University Press, New York. Machlis GE, Force JE, Burch WR (1997) The human ecosystem Part I: The human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources 10(4):347-367. Maxwell K, Kiessling B, Buckley JA (2018) How clean is clean: A review of the social science of environmental cleanups. Environmental Research Letters 13(8):083002. https://doi.ore/10.1088/1748-9326/aad74b McCaffrey KT (2018) Environmental remediation and its discontents: the The contested cleanup of Vieques, Puerto Rico. Journal of Political Ecology 25:80-103. https://doi.ore/10.2458/v25il.22631 Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Metcalf EC, Mohr JJ, Yung L et al. (2015) The role of trust in restoration success: Public engagement and temporal and spatial scale in a complex social-ecological system. Restoration Ecology 23(3):315-324. https://doi.or 88 National Institutes of Health (2011) Principles of Community Engagement. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Ottinger G, Cohen B (eds.) (2011) Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement., MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM et al. (2011) Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a decade of progress. Journal of Environmental Management 92(3):331-362. https://doi.ore/10 101 i |^nvman. JO 10 08.022 Power E, Keeling A (2018) Cleaning up Cosmos: Satellite Debris, Radioactive Risk, and the Politics of Knowledge in Operation Morning Light. The Northern Review 48(Oct): 81-109. https://doi.org/10.22584/nr48.2018.004 Raimond RR (2001) Trust and Conflict in Public Participation. Division of Hazardous Materials and Waste Management, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado. Reynolds J, Kizito J, Ezumah N et al. (2011) Quality assurance of qualitative research: A review of the discourse. Health Research Policy and Systems 9:43. https://doi.on 1478-4505-9- 43 Schlosberg D (2007) Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 36 ------- Shriver TE, Cable S, Kennedy D (2008) Mining for conflict and staking claims: Contested illness at the Tar Creek Superfund Site. Sociological Inquiry 78(4):558-579. https://doi.Org/l EX.2008.0025 8.x The White House (1994) Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Federal Register, 59 FR 7629. The White House (2021) Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. Executive Order 14008, of January 27, 2021. Tironi M, Rodriguez-Giralt I (2017) Healing, knowing, enduring: Care and politics in damaged worlds. The Sociological Review Monographs 65(2_suppl):89-109. https://doi.org/10 I I /0081 I 1374 Tracy SJ (2013) Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact, Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Tsosie R (2015) Indigenous Peoples and the ethics of remediation: Redressing the legacy of radioactive contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands. Santa Clara Journal of International Law 13(l):203-272. https://digitalcommons.law.scii.edii/sciiiil/voll3/issl/10 Ulibarri N, Tracy CL, McCarty RJ (2020) Cleanup and complexity: Nuclear and industrial contamination at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California. Environmental Management 65:257-271. https://doi.org/i 0 J007/s002 0 r 01. ^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Community, Culture, and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding Sense of Place. EPA 842-B-01-003. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003) How to Identify People to Involve. National Center for Environmental Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2020) Superfund Community Involvement Handbook. OLEM 9230.0-51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2019) Building Cultures of Preparedness: A Report for the Emergency Management Higher Education Community. FEMA, Washington, D.C. Zaragoza LJ (2019) The Environmental Protection Agency's use of community involvement to engage communities at Superfund sites. International Journal of Environmental Research Public Health 16(21 ):4166. https://doi.org/10.3390/iien 37 ------- Glossary Affected population - The portion of a community that is impacted in some way (e.g., health, property, emotions, society) by the contaminated site and/or its cleanup. Audience factors - Variables related to the audience in risk communication, i.e., language, literacy, numeracy, identity, cultural norms, and community history. Cleanup - Actions related to assessment, remediation, and removal undertaken by cleanup practitioners between site discovery and listing through redevelopment, reoccupation, and reuse. It encompasses a variety of sites, response actions, contaminants, and social actors. Cleanup practitioner - An environmental professional who works on cleanups, with at least some work at the contaminated site itself or in the surrounding community. At EPA, it includes personnel who work as an OSC, RPM, RCRA corrective action, UST/LUST, PCB, or TSCA site manager, or CIC/ Public Affairs Specialist. Community - For the purposes of this report, community is defined as a group of people that live in the same vicinity (e.g., county, city, neighborhood) or share a common defining characteristic (e.g., online gaming). Community Advisory Group - A group made up of diverse community interests designed to serve as the focal point for the exchange of information among the local community and EPA, the state regulatory agency, and other pertinent federal agencies involved in cleanup of the Superfund site. Its purpose is to provide a public forum for community members to present and discuss their needs and concerns related to the Superfund decision-making process. Community Involvement Plan - A community involvement plan is a site-specific strategy to enable meaningful community involvement throughout the Superfund cleanup process. It specifies EPA-planned community involvement activities and is required by the NCP. Constituency - A subset of a community or cultural group with a common interest, e.g., a block of voters, or affected populations who have to relocate. Culture - "The entire pattern of belief and behavior that is learned and shared by people as members of a social group" (Kiefer 2007 p. 4). Culture change - A social actor, cultural group, or organization undergoes a meaningful shift in their behavior, values, and practices. Cultural differences - When social actors or organizations diverge in their comprehension of how the world works, key values, daily practices, or other elements of culture. Culturally informed cleanups - Cleanup practitioners understand and acknowledge cultural differences between themselves and other social actors and institutions and make deliberate attempts to bridge these differences. Demographics - Characteristics (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, economic class) used to understand the structure of a population or of a segment of a population. 38 ------- Environmental justice - The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (see EPA EJ website, https://www.epa.gOv/environmentaliustice/learn-about-environmental-iustice#). Environmental site characterization - Analysis of environmental data and modeling to understand current and potential hazards and conditions at contaminated site. In EPA documents, often "site characterization." Equity - The consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Indigenous Peoples - Includes state-recognized tribes; indigenous and tribal community-based organizations; individual members of federally recognized tribes, including those living on a different reservation or living outside Indian Country; individual members of state-recognized tribes; Native Hawaiians; Native Pacific Islanders; and individual Native Americans. Rights holder - Indigenous Peoples and other local or mobile groups who have customary or treaty rights to natural resources, sacred sites, grazing lands, and other places. Risk communication - Communication intended to provide a general or specific audience with the information they need to make informed, independent judgments about risks to their health, safety, and the environment. SALT framework - EPA's framework for risk communication, it is based on a process of Strategy, Action, and Learning and is supported by Tools. Social actor - Any person who has the capacity, potential or realized, to make decisions or shape their world, and/or is affected by cleanup decisions. For cleanups, a social actor could be member of an affected community, or a representative of a responsible party, federal or state agency, or non-governmental organization. Social site characterization - Application of social science theories and methods to understand cultural, economic, political, and social characteristics of communities or populations affected by contaminated sites and/ or cleanups. Stakeholder - Individuals or representatives from organizations or interest groups that have a strong interest in the Agency's work and policies or a stake in the Agency's decisions. 39 ------- Appendix A. Additional EPA Resources Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place Link: https://www.epa.eov/nep/commimitY-ciiltiire-and-environment Description: The report provides methods and resources for understanding the human aspects of environmental issues. It is based on social science research and appropriate for government agencies, non-governmental organizations, tribes, and other audiences. Community Involvement Toolkit Link: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-communitv-involvement-tools-and- resources#general Description: The Toolkit is a collection of resources that aid in the development and practice of community involvement activities. Each tool describes an activity or resource that a Superfund site team may use to involve and inform the community Community Involvement Plans Tool Link: https://semspiib.epa.eov/work/HQ/100002 f Description: This tool is part of the Community Involvement Toolkit. It explains why community involvement plans are important, and how to develop and implement a plan. Health Impact Assessment Author: CDC with materials adapted by EPA Link: https://www.epa.gov/healthresearch/health-impact-assessments Description: Health Impact Assessments help practitioners investigate how a proposed project or plan might impact human health and well-being, before making a decision. Public Involvement Policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Link: https://archive.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/web/html/index-6.html Description: It describes the statutory provisions of EPA's policy for public involvement. It defines public involvement and includes seven steps for effective public involvement. SALT framework Link: https://www.epa.gov/risk-communication/salt-framework Description: The S ALT framework is a process of Strategy, Action, and Learning supported by Tools. It provides a research-based approach and best practices for risk communication. Superfund Community Involvement Handbook Link: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-communitv-involvement-tools-and- resources#general Description: It provides guidance to EPA staff on how EPA typically plans and implements community involvement activities at Superfund sites. It is intended to help promote consistent implementation of community involvement regulations, policies and practices. 40 ------- vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID EPA PERMIT NO. G-35 Office of Research and Development (8101R) Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 ------- |