EPA/600/R-22/104 | September 2022
www.epa.gov/emergency-response-research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
oEPA
Building Trust and Relationships in
Cleanup Community Engagement,
from Theory to Practice
nnuuni .llllDru
MISSIONARY BAPIjST^CHU^^
m "m::
i '
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
an 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. 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 EPA.
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
m axwell. keely@epa. gov
i
-------
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, often
involves engaging with diverse communities. Social science theories provide a deep understanding of
how community engagement intersects with trust and relationship building. Meanwhile, insights from
cleanup practitioners show how these concepts operate on the ground. This report connects the theory
and practice of community engagement, providing a nuanced understanding of the social interactions
inherent to cleanups. The objective is to highlight the community engagement work that is already
taking place, while situating these practices within a broader social framework. The discussion may be
informative for a variety of audiences, such as federal and state agencies, contractors, and applied
environmental social scientists.
Gregory Sayles, Director
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
ii
-------
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Background 2
2.1 Key definitions 2
2.2 Policy framework and guidance 3
3 Research methods and quality assurance 4
4 Community engagement in cleanups 5
4.1 Theory about engagement 5
4.1.1 What is community engagement 5
4.1.2 Benefits to cleanups 6
4.1.3 Challenges in doing it well 8
4.2 Engagement in practice 11
4.2.1 Creative examples of doing it well 11
4.2.2 Putting in the time 12
4.2.3 EPA practices across cleanup types and stages 12
4.3 Practical takeaways 15
5 Building trust 15
5.1 Theory of trust 16
5.2 Building trust in practice 17
5.2.1 Processes for building trust 17
5.2.2 Factors that negatively affect trust 20
5.2.3 How do you know when you've built trust? 21
5.3 Practical takeaways 22
6 Building relationships in cleanup work 22
6.1 Building theory about building relationships 22
6.2 Building relationships in practice 24
6.3 Practical takeaways 25
7 Discussion 26
7.1 Interconnections among relationships, trust, engagement 26
7.2 Engagement and empowerment 26
7.3 What is best? 27
7.4 Remaining research gaps 28
8 Conclusion 29
9 References 30
10 Appendices 35
10.1 Glossary 35
10.2 EPA resources for engagement 37
10.3 Engagement resources in the literature 38
iii
-------
Table of Figures
Figure 1. How community engagement benefits cleanup work 6
Figure 2. Social and institutional challenges to implementing community engagement 8
Figure 3. Contaminated sites where EPA cleanup practitioners commonly work, weighted 13
Figure 4. Types of communities where EPA cleanup practitioners work on sites, weighted 14
Figure 5. Components of trust in cleanup work 16
Figure 6. Elements of trust building 17
Figure 7. Biggest obstacles to building relationships, weighted 24
Figure 8. Community engagement, relationships, and trust over the course of a cleanup 26
Tables
Table 1. Potential Applications of This Report 2
Table 2. Getting Started Guide 2
Table 3. Engagement Strategies Used by Cleanup Stage, Column Percentage, Weighted 14
Table 4. Meeting Challenges in Engagement 15
Table 5. Most Effective Strategies for Building Trust with the Community During Cleanups, Weighted 19
Table 6. Trust Building Strategies Employed by Cleanup Role, Weighted 19
Table 7. Top Ways Practitioners Gauge Trust with Community Members, Unweighted 21
Table 8. Actions for Building Trust 22
Table 9. Top Ten Reported Benefits of Building Relationships, Unweighted 23
Table 10. Top 10 Categories of Advice for New Colleagues on Building Relationships, Unweighted 25
Table 11. Building Relationships in Cleanups 25
iv
-------
Abbreviations
CAG
community advisory group
CERCLA
Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CESER
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
CI
community involvement
CIC
community involvement coordinator
EJ
environmental justice
EJSCREEN
Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool
EO
Executive Order
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
LUST
leaking underground storage tank
NEJAC
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
OLEM
Office of Land and Emergency Management
OSC
on-scene coordinator
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl
PRP
potentially responsible party
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
v
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was developed by the U.S. EPA's 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 Mary Clare Hano, Louie Rivers, Terra Haxton, and Sang Don
Lee. External peer reviews were conducted by Peter C. Little and Victoria Phaneuf.
vi
-------
Executive Summary
This report provides an evidence basis for why and how to undertake community engagement during
contaminated site remediation, removals, and redevelopment. It explains the science behind community
engagement, trust, and building relationships and shares insights from research with personnel from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). By weaving together social science theory with data on
engagement practices in different cultural and environmental contexts, it highlights the interconnections
among community engagement, trust, and relationships throughout the course of a cleanup. The report
demonstrates the importance of community engagement, trust, and relationships to cleanup processes
and outcomes, especially when trying to advance justice, equity, and empowerment. Key findings are:
Cleanup practitioners all undertake engagement, trust, and relationships. The form, type, and degree
depend on their role, contaminated site situation, community context, and cleanup stage.
Community Engagement
• If done well, community engagement benefits both cleanup processes and outcomes.
• Staff undertaking community engagement require significant time commitments and support.
• Dimensions include: emotional connections, knowledge, behavior, and empowerment.
• It is important to pay attention to power asymmetries, whose knowledge counts, emotions, cross-
cultural communication, using the right method at the right time and place, and self-reflection.
• EPA staff use creative approaches to outreach, listening, networking, capacity building, and
empowerment that correspond with the social scientific literature.
Building Trust
• Trust is an essential part of environmental cleanups.
• Trust among the different parties waxes and wanes over the course of a cleanup.
• Cleanup work involves multiple, interconnected dimensions of trust: in the management process;
in the cleanup outcome; and in the agency representative or person.
• Building trust is time intensive; trust is fragile and if lost, can be difficult to regain.
• Practices for building trust can be categorized into: showing up, communication, listening,
learning, sharing, and respect.
• EPA staff use several ways of gauging how they have built trust.
Building Relationships
• Fostering relationships in cleanup work contributes to trust building and community engagement.
• EPA staff actively cultivate relationships with many social actors during environmental cleanups.
• Building relationships leads to short and long-term benefits for cleanup work.
• Obstacles include limited time/resources and overcoming preconceived ideas about others.
This report is intended for use by federal, state, local, and tribal practitioners working in Superfund,
brownfields, emergency response, and other cleanup situations. In connecting theory with practice, it has
several potential applications: a justification for investing in engagement, a framework for trainings or
tabletop exercises, or a resource to prepare a community involvement plan. Since engagement, trust, and
relationship building need to be tailored to the contaminated site, community, and cleanup stage at hand,
these findings are not meant to be used as strict guidelines or best practices but are a superstructure that
users can customize to their own situation.
vii
-------
1 Introduction
In this section you will learn about:
The purpose and objective of this report
The main takeaways
The audience for this report and how readers might use it
Community engagement is central to environmental management projects to restore land and revitalize
communities. The objective of this report is to support practitioners who are involved in contaminated
site cleanup to effectively integrate evidence-based community engagement practices into cleanup
efforts. It explains the science behind engagement and shares insights from social science research with
personnel from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The intended audience includes
cleanup practitioners and managers at federal, state, local, and tribal environmental agencies,
contractors, and applied environmental social scientists.
Community engagement has many more dimensions than can be covered here. The scope of this report
is limited to two interrelated components: building trust and building relationships. It analyzes the social
scientific foundation of community engagement as part of environmental remediation, removal actions,
and redevelopment of contaminated sites (e.g., Superfund, brownfields, emergency response). It
synthesizes existing practices and strategies gathered through interviews and surveys with EPA
personnel, guidance from EPA and other agencies, and the scientific literature.
This report builds on previous research on how to get to know communities near contaminated sites to
carry out culturally informed cleanups (Maxwell and Kiessling, 2021). It complements existing
resources such as the Superfund Community Involvement Handbook and Toolkit by providing a social
science foundation for engaging with communities, building trust, and building relationships in cleanup
work (EPA, 2019a, 2020). The report showcases practices used at EPA, connects them with theory, and
details how they differ across cleanup stages and situations. The analysis shows that engagement,
building trust, and relationships are interrelated and affect cleanup processes and outcomes. The report
highlights the theories and practice associated with each and discusses their interconnections.
Main report takeaways
1. Community engagement, building trust, and building relationships are central to
environmental cleanup processes and outcomes. It takes time, effort, resources, skills, and
commitment to do engagement well.
2. Cleanup practitioners all undertake building trust and relationships. The form, type, and
degree depend on the cleanup situation, timing, and local social context.
3. Social science provides insights into why and how to undertake community engagement
and trust and relationship building.
4. Social, cultural, institutional, and power dynamics affect how community engagement
plays out on the ground, so it is important to understand these contexts.
5. EPA cleanup practitioners use a number of strategies in different cleanup types, stages,
and cultural contexts. They often go "above and beyond" community involvement
requirements, employing strategies that correspond with techniques from the literature.
For each theme discussed in this report—community engagement, relationship building, and trust—the
following are highlighted 1) insights from social science theory, 2) insights from EPA practitioners, and
1
-------
3) applied takeaways. Tables 1 and 2 provide examples of how readers might use this report and where
to find specific topics, respectively. Readers can jump to sections that might be most relevant to them.
Table 1. Potential Applications of This Report
Who Could Use It For What
On-scene coordinators (OSCs) and I .eariium u Inch techniques lo use ;ii u liich slaue of ;i projeel
remedial project managers (RPMs)
Resource Conservation and Recovery I'repare risk coininiinicnlion lh;il fosiers irusl
Act (RCRA) managers
Brownfieldmanagers Tailor leeliiiieal assislanee lo eoiiiimiiiin needs
Community involvement coordinators .1 usi11\ I lie importance and resource neetls ol ilns w oik
(CICs)
Environmental social scientists I \plore how theories conned in dm I he ui'onnd p radices
State environmental agencies \1auaue rclalionships helw ecu aflcclcd uroups ;ind responded
EPA branch chiefs Iclcnl11\ rele\aiil iraiiiums fur sialf
Table 2. Getting Started Guide
I want to...
Read Section
klcniils \\h;ii policies eni coiiiiiiiiniiv eiitznuenieiil ;ind in\ ol\ eineiii
1 ,e;ini w h;il coiiiiiiiinilv eiiunueiiienl is;ind \\h;il 11 e111;111 s
4 1 1
I iidersiniid Iriu COIIIIIIIIIIIIV ciiiz;iucniciil heiiellis deniiiip wnrk
4 i:
ISc ;iw;iiv i
-------
Community engagement is "the process of working collaboratively with and through groups of
people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to address issues
affecting the well-being of those people" (McCloskey et al., 2011).
Community involvement is "the process of engaging with communities affected by Superfund sites"
(EPA, 2020).
Building relationships is the process of creating positive social and affective connections between
individuals and/or groups of people.
Building trust is the process of fostering confidence in a person's reliability, honesty, and/or ability,
and/or confidence in an organization's management processes and outcomes, within a given situation.
In environmental management, community engagement is when a government agency, firm, or other
organization establishes relationships and trust with public constituencies to solve an environmental
problem. Public constituencies could include formal officials, informal leaders, everyday residents, and
interest groups. Relationships range from shallow to deep, and public participation in problem solving
ranges from tangential to central. EPA uses the term community involvement to refer to engagement in
remediation and removal projects authorized under the Comprehensive Emergency Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). Community involvement requires the development of a site-specific
community involvement plan, based upon a community profile that includes community interviews, and
details outreach, engagement, and decision-making for that site (EPA, 2020). Throughout this report, the
broader term of community engagement is used because it covers a range of cleanup situations.
2.2 Policy framework and guidance
EPA's use of community engagement and involvement in removal, remediation, and redevelopment has
expanded over time (Charnley and Engelbert, 2005; Zaragoza, 2019). Both CERCLA and the NCP
specify requirements for community involvement to which EPA must adhere. 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 (EPA, 2021b). In 2001, a memo from the acting director of the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER, now the Office of Land and Emergency Management
(OLEM)) reinforced the importance of "early and meaningful community involvement" in Superfund
decision-making (EPA, 2001a). In 2003, EPA published a Public Involvement Policy that covers
decision-making across the Agency, including environmental cleanups. The policy states that the
Agency should "continue to provide for meaningful public involvement in all its programs, and
consistently look for new ways to enhance public input" (EPA, 2003c). A corresponding framework for
implementing the policy lists seven steps for effective public involvement (EPA, 2003a). The 2019
Superfund Task Force Final Report iterated the Agency's commitment to "engaging partners and
stakeholders" in restoring land and revitalizing communities (EPA, 2019d). The report includes a
partnership and stakeholder engagement strategy to help meet this commitment (EPA, 2019b).
The EPA Community Involvement Handbook provides legal and practical rationales for community
involvement and extensive guidance on how to prepare community profiles, conduct community
interviews, and create a community involvement plan (EPA, 2020). Community involvement in
brownfield remediation projects is not mandated in the same way as with Superfund National Priority
List sites. The EPA brownfield program's emphasis on redevelopment and the fact that many brownfield
projects are initiated locally means there is engagement and participation at many levels.
3
-------
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12898, 13985, and 14008 on equity, environmental justice (EJ), and climate
change provide additional impetus for community engagement and empowerment as part of cleanup
work (The White House, 1994, 2021a, 2021b). EPA is obliged to "deliver environmental justice;"
advance "equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity;" and engage with "members of
underserved communities" (The White House, 2021a). OLEM's 2021 draft EJ Action Plan sets
"improving community engagement" as a goal for advancing EJ in land revitalization and environmental
cleanups (EPA, 2021a). Low-income, tribal, and communities of color in the United States long have
highlighted environmental injustices in disproportionate impacts from contaminated sites and the need
for fair treatment and meaningful involvement in cleanups (Allen, 2003; Checker, 2007; Hoover, 2017).
EJ has four dimensions: distributional, procedural, recognitional, and capabilities (see Appendix 10.1)
(Eisenhauer et al., 2021; Schlosberg, 2007). Conducting cleanups in a way that addresses all four
dimensions of EJ requires special attention to community engagement and empowerment.
3 Research methods and quality assurance
In this section you will learn about:
- What data was collected for this report and how data quality objectives were met
- Whose expertise is represented in the data
This report is based upon four years of mixed-methods social science research grounded in
anthropology. It began with a multidisciplinary literature review on the social science of environmental
cleanups (Maxwell et al., 2018). Data quality objectives were to ensure that data sources met EPA
quality standards, the review was comprehensive, and information was accurately extracted from the
articles. Objectives were achieved by having researchers cross-check inclusion ratings, random quality
control (QC) checks, triangulating information from multiple sources, and periodically assessing data
saturation (Maxwell et al., 2018). Data saturation is the point at which no new insights are gained from
collecting more data. The literature found by the review addressed cleanup worker health, public
engagement and decision-making, and societal benefits of cleanups (Maxwell et al., 2018).
The research team interviewed 25 cleanup practitioners at EPA to compare on-the-ground experiences
with the literature (Kiessling et al., 2021). The sample consisted of OSCs, RPMs, CICs, and brownfield
managers with a wide range of experiences in cleanup work. Data quality objectives were to ensure that
questions generated productive dialogue, transcripts accurately captured the conversation, and coding
was consistently applied to transcripts. Coding is a qualitative analysis technique where data are labelled
thematically. Objectives were achieved by creating and pilot testing interview protocols and informed
consent, QC checks on transcripts, periodically assessing data saturation, and coming to agreement on
coding within the team. Interview 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).
Following the interviews, the research team conducted a survey of nearly 400 EPA employees on
engagement, trust, and relationship building in cleanup work. The survey reached a deeper and wider
sample of EPA personnel who work in Superfund, removals, RCRA corrective action sites, underground
storage tanks, emergency response, brownfield redevelopment, and federal facilities. Data quality
objectives 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 the analysis. Objectives were achieved by following the sampling frame, pilot
4
-------
testing the questionnaire and informed consent, technical testing of the survey instrument, undertaking
extensive recruitment and outreach, using eligibility questions, reviewing daily data reports, conducting
random QC checks, and establishing protocols for outliers and other data concerns.
The final piece of data is an examination of EPA resources and guidance on community involvement
and public participation (Appendix 10.2). The research team reviewed materials produced by the
Superfund Program, Community Involvement University, Office of Water, and former National Center
for Environmental Innovation (EPA, 2002, 2003b, 2020). Materials were identified using snowball
sampling, beginning with the Superfund Community Involvement website (EPA, 2022). Materials from
other agencies were also examined (e.g. McCloskey et al., 2011).
4 Community engagement in cleanups
In this section you will learn about:
- How social scientists describe the dimensions of community engagement
The benefits and challenges of community engagement in cleanup work
- How EPA practitioners carry out community engagement in different cleanup types and stages
4.1 Theory about engagement
This section presents theories and evidence from the literature on what community engagement is,
potential benefits to cleanups, and challenges that arise. Next, it integrates evidence from the literature,
EPA materials, and interview and survey data on engagement practices, providing examples of creative
outreach, listening, capacity building, networking, and empowerment. It discusses the importance of
putting in the time, then turns to how engagement strategies differ along cleanup timelines and in varied
social and environmental contexts. Throughout, it incorporates interview quotations to highlight
important points of alignment or divergence between the literature and research findings of this project.
4.1.1 What is community engagement
A considerable amount of social science literature is devoted to unpacking the complex dimensions of
community engagement. Researchers have shown that it has cognitive, affective, and behavioral
aspects—that is, how people think, feel, and act all contribute to how engagement plays out. Community
engagement entails affective commitment, or an emotional attachment from feeling valued or belonging;
positive affectivity, which is the generation of positive emotions such as excitement or enthusiasm; and
empowerment of the people involved (MacNamara, 2019). Effective engagement supports decision-
making, but community engagement can also take place outside of a decision context. Likewise, it is
related to but not synonymous with public participation in environmental management and decision-
making (Reed, 2008).
Community engagement is conceptualized as a process of creating and sustaining relationships and bi-
directional communication, a strategy for soliciting local perspectives on critical issues, a means of
working collaboratively to solve problems, a route to community empowerment in decision-making, and
an interpersonal connection (Cox et al., 2019; MacNamara, 2019; Taylor and Kent, 2014). It is not a set
suite of activities, rather needs to be adaptive over time and tailored to place (Cox et al., 2019; Taylor
and Kent, 2014)—something practitioners grapple with moving from one cleanup to another. How
context affects community engagement and how practitioners adapt to these contexts is a theme
explored throughout this report.
5
-------
Community engagement is categorized into levels of increasingly intensive types of interaction and
extensive outcomes. The National Park Service distinguishes between shallow and deep engagement in
its outreach programming (NPS, 2011). Williamson (2022) utilizes a six-step community engagement
scale in environmental research: outreach, consult, involve, collaborate, shared leadership, and
community-led. Bowen et al. (2010) organize it into three categories in the business world:
transactional, where a firm simply donates time or resources to a local cause; transitional, which has
more two-way communication and interactions; and transformative, which requires authentic dialogue
and critical reflection. The principal difference between transitional and transformative community
engagement is trust (Bowen et al., 2010).
Delving into the social theory of community engagement provides insights into why practices work as
they do and inspiration for overcoming challenges. For example, if local residents are dissatisfied or
mistrustful, shifting from shallow to deep engagement might help. Deeper engagement could entail
appealing to core values and beliefs, committing more time to being on site, and other trust building
actions.
4.1.2 Benefits to cleanups
Researchers have found that community engagement is beneficial to environmental cleanups in several
ways. Here, these benefits are grouped into two main categories, instrumental and normative (Figure 1).
Instrumental benefits are where agency or local social actors accomplish objectives they have for
progressing through cleanup processes or achieving desired cleanup outcomes. Normative benefits are
where community engagement helps advance higher-order values such as equity, justice, and
participation (Beckett and Keeling, 2019; Dearing, 2019; Lehigh et al., 2020; Metcalf et al., 2015).
Potential benefits of community engagement can span both categories (normative and instrumental), and
come to fruition in the short term (e.g., complete a record of decision) and/or long term (e.g., foster
relationships with state environmental and health agencies).
Instrumental
Process effects
•Agencv: help them get to a de
reduce conflicts; meet statute
•Local: help them get to a deci
informed; build capacity; prov
icision; inform solution; educate the public; enable progress; secure buy-in and support;
iry requirements; come to consensus; lead to creative solutions
sion; incorporate their values, concerns, and knowledge into decisions; become
'ide input into decisions
Outcome effects
•Short term: Achieve better en
•Long term: Repair and/or nut
vironmental, social, and health outcomes of cleanups
ure relationships, trust
Achieve higher order values
•Equity, environmental justice, sustainability
•Participatory decision-making
•Include multiple forms of knowledge
Figure 1. How community engagement benefits cleanup work.
6
-------
Instrumental benefits for agencies include securing public buy-in, enabling progress, making a decision,
coming to agreement about acceptable solutions, making better decisions, saving costs, increasing public
confidence in decisions, and meeting statutory requirements for community involvement (Cundy et al.,
2013; EPA, 2001b, 2020; Foley et al., 2017; Jawed and Krantzberg, 2019; Petrie, 2006; Zaragoza,
2019). It can help agencies avoid delays, litigation, and other problems that arise when decisions do not
have adequate public involvement (EPA, 2000, 2003c). Affected communities and populations might
also see instrumental benefits in the form of education, capacity building, and building relationships
(EPA, 2020; Krantzberg and Rich, 2018). It can help them influence agency decisions and figure out
their own vision for revitalization (Apitz et al., 2018; Ellerbusch et al., 2006; Metcalf et al., 2015).
Community engagement is associated with more innovative solutions and improved environmental and
health outcomes (Daley, 2007; Petrie, 2006). It helps address psychosocial stressors often connected to
chronic exposure to contamination (Couch and Coles, 2011). Reductions in such stress can contribute to
reductions in health risks such as depression, anxiety, and even cardiovascular disease (Calloway et al.,
2020). Community engagement can help cleanups incorporate local concerns, leading to more positive
societal outcomes and fewer unintended consequences (Apitz et al., 2018; Cruz, 2019; EPA, 1998b,
2020; Folk, 1991; NEJAC Waste and Facility Siting Committee, 1996).
The issue of whose knowledge counts refers to how well remediation decisions are inclusive of different
ways of knowing, types of evidence, conceptualizations of risk, and lived experience (Allen, 2007;
Brown et al., 2020; Capek, 1993; Clapp et al., 2016; Frickel, 2012). Incorporating multiple forms of
knowledge in decision-making provides instrumental benefits by being able to use critical pieces of
information about site history, and ecological, social, and health conditions (Burger et al., 2005; Carr
and Halvorsen, 2001). It also advances normative benefits regarding equity and environmental justice, as
cleanup practitioners acknowledge histories of racist environmental practices and work with
communities to find equitable solutions.
Interviewees saw community engagement as
largely positive and connected it with having a
successful cleanup overall (see box on right). The
social scientific literature also asserts that
remediation requires the repair and rebuilding of
social relationships, along with remediation of
toxicity and redevelopment of contaminated sites
(Beckett and Keeling, 2019; Tsosie, 2015). Another
benefit interviewees stated was that engagement
helped them build long term relationships, which to
them was an end in and of itself.
While community engagement provides many positive impacts on cleanup process and outcomes, it also
involves tradeoffs. It can extend the time needed between site characterization/assessment and
completion of remedial or removal actions (Cruz, 2019; Daley and Layton, 2004; Folk, 1991; Little,
2009; Petrie, 2006). It takes time to do things such as organize meetings and make decisions involving
multiple constituents (Foley et al., 2017; Jawed and Krantzberg, 2019). Interviewees acknowledged that
community engagement does slow specific decisions, but felt that overall, it enables progress. It creates
opportunities for community members to be a part of the process, lessening resistance and increasing
support for a project. Practitioners also reported that community engagement helped identify creative
solutions and reach compromises.
Benefits of Community Engagement, from
interviewees
"[Without it], you may have gotten work done, but
there's still all the frustration, anger, and discontent
that will just make it seem like the project may
have been a failure."
It "pays dividends."
"I feel [that public input is] 60 percent of how to
get a project successful... even if they're not
happy, as long as they feel like they're involved,
and they are involved, things move smoothly."
7
-------
4.1.3 Challenges in doing it well
Doing community engagement well is challenging and requires significant time, effort, and commitment
(see section 4.2.2). What 'community engagement' is and who 'the community' is mean different things
to different people (Cruz, 2019; Little, 2009). This report groups challenges based on whether the
contributing factor originates with the government agency, community, their interactions, or externally
(Figure 2). Such grouping is not about assigning blame, but about showing how the social dynamics of
community engagement are embedded within an institutional, cultural, psychological, and political
milieu.
Government agency
•Time, resources, personnel, skills, cultural knowledge
• Management and leadership support
• Staff turnover
• Organizational culture
Community
~ Competing values, fragmented interests, many actors
~ Uneven participation, engagement fatigue, capacity
~ Changes overtime (demographic, values, interest)
~ Inclusion/ exclusion, who speaks for whom
• Emotions
• Power asymmetries
•Whose knowledge counts
• Cross-cultural communication mismatches
• Right method, wrong time or place
• Media
• Politics
• Multiple agencies - competing messages, confusing
authority
• COVID-19 pandemic
Figure 2. Social and institutional challenges to implementing community engagement.
Government agencies face internal obstacles to implementing community engagement such as
limitations on resources, time, funding, staff, and expertise (Chess and Purcell, 1999; McCaffrey, 2018;
McCloskey et al., 2011; NPS, 2011). Additionally, staff turnover is an impediment to building
relationships and trust (Ramirez-Andreotta et al., 2014; Stern and Coleman, 2015; Walker and East,
2014). Other limiting factors are management and leadership support (Jawed and Krantzberg, 2019;
McCaffrey, 2018; NPS, 2011). If managers and supervisors do not think
community engagement is a priority, staff might not receive resources
to carry it out effectively. Agency knowledge of local cultures is
important yet can be difficult to achieve (Maxwell and Kiessling, 2021;
NPS, 2011). An organizational culture oriented towards taking action,
8
"[Organizational culture]
doesn't always provide the
bandwidth to really listen to
communities." (Interviewee)
-------
not time to listen, can also be a challenge (see box on left). This research indicates that proactive
community engagement is better able to build relationships and trust over time. Community engagement
can be reactive rather than proactive, though, simply due to capacity constraints.
At the community level, a significant challenge is who is included or excluded, which is especially
problematic if exclusion reproduces socioeconomic inequities and power asymmetries (Miller, 2016).
One obstacle can be the sheer number of individuals and organizations. Research on the Portland Harbor
Superfund site found over 280 separate interest groups (Apitz et al., 2018). Local social actors exhibit
complex, at times conflicting perspectives on remediation (Cooper and Wardropper, 2021).
Timing of inclusion is also a factor. In two studies, local social actors who felt they were not brought on
early enough did not support later cleanup decisions (Jawed and Krantzberg, 2019; Metcalf et al., 2015).
Beginning early leaves time to identify and reach out to social networks, community-based
organizations, environmental advocates, and other social and cultural groups, minimizing unintentional
exclusion (Chess and Purcell, 1999; Cundy et al., 2013; EPA, 2001b; Metcalf et al., 2015). Perko et al.
(2019) recommend providing compensation for participation to equal the playing field.
Participation differs among neighborhoods, population groups, and cleanup stages (Cruz, 2019; Miller,
2016; Perko et al., 2019). Uneven participation results from a combination of irregular outreach; local
awareness of/ interest in the site; fragmented or competing interests, values, and priorities; trust in
institutions; capacity and access to resources; relationships with the potentially responsible party (PRP);
and structural barriers to participation (e.g., job hours, childcare needs, trauma, historic marginalization,
language) (Charnley and Engelbert, 2005; Kim, 2017; Miller, 2016; Stephan, 2005). During long
projects, local participation waxes and wanes due to issue fatigue; whether they felt that previous input
was heeded or not; demographic shifts; emergent organizations; sustained outreach efforts; and changes
in local values, opinions, trust, expectations, and capacity (Cox et al., 2019; Danielson et al., 2008; EPA,
2001b; Lehigh et al., 2020; Miller, 2016; Perko et al., 2019; Reed et al., 2009). Higher levels and
duration of engagement are found when there is a stable community partner, a common understanding of
the issue consensus on a vision for redevelopment or reuse, and willingness to collaborate among all
parties (Ellerbusch et al., 2006; Foley et al., 2017; Zaragoza, 2019).
External factors affecting engagement are also at play, as the literature and interviews indicate (Cox et
al., 2019; Danielson et al., 2008; National Research Council, 2008). Media coverage and political
interest affect the course of engagement. If multiple state and federal agencies are involved, community
members are not always clear on who has authority for which parts of the project. They lose trust when
one agency's messages contradict another. The COVID-19pandemic has affected social interactions
around the nation and has meant changing guidelines, technologies, and capacity for CE.
Some challenges emerge from the forms and types of interactions between communities and agencies.
Public meetings are required in community involvement, for example, but are not always conducive to
exchanging dialogue, developing consensus, or building trust (Carr and Halvorsen, 2001; Chess and
Purcell, 1999; EPA, 2019a; Jenkins et al., 2012; Rowe and Frewer, 2000). If a public meeting agenda
focuses on technical content, locals might not see a space for them to raise non-technical concerns; when
agency-invited experts sit on a dais and expound on scientific details to an audience seated below, locals
might feel condescended to by agencies (Chess and Purcell, 1999; Kaminstein, 1996).
These problems reflect the underlying challenges of whose knowledge counts and power asymmetries.
Community engagement in cleanups often centers on technical decisions (e.g., cleanup action levels,
9
-------
remedy options). It approaches risk in a narrow sense (e.g., possible exposure routes for a specific
chemical), rather than a holistic discussion of health, well-being, community aspirations, and the
environment. The language or discourse used is grounded in risk assessment, science, and engineering
(e.g., quantitative modeling, fate and transport). As such, power asymmetries emerge in terms of whose
knowledge counts (Allen, 2007; Brown et al., 2020; Capek, 1993; Clapp et al., 2016; Frickel, 2012).
Scientific expert assessments of risk are characterized as rational, objective, and authoritative, while
local experiences with risk and perspectives on comparative risk are characterized as subjective and
based on misconceptions (Fiorino, 1989; Freudenburg, 1988; McCaffrey, 2018). Power asymmetries
thus arise, not just with respect to who has the authority to make decisions about site assessment or
remedy selection; but also in terms of who frames the terms of engagement, what topics are on the table,
and what are appropriate ways of talking about these topics (Fiorino, 1989; Foley et al., 2017;
Kaminstein, 1996; Lehigh et al., 2020; McCaffrey, 2018; Till and Meyer, 2001). Power asymmetries
between agencies and communities, among agencies, and within a community will never go away
completely, and need specific attention to mitigate.
Community engagement also places an emotional burden
on cleanup practitioners (see box on right). Practitioners
might get yelled at in public meetings. In emergency
response and time-critical removals, OSCs mandate
evacuation from homes or order decontamination and
disposal of a family's personal belongings, which is
emotionally charged for all involved. Emotional labor, or managing one's own and others' emotions in
the workplace (Wharton, 2009), is part of the intensive effort of cleanup work.
Another challenge is that there can be cross-cultural communication mismatches in community
engagement interactions. Local knowledge of place and ways of knowing about the environment and
health are not always legible to agency scientists or redevelopment planners. In contrast, when scientists
and project managers stick to purely technical scripts, community members feel patronized and view
agency personnel as uncaring (Capek, 1993; Kaminstein, 1996; Lehigh et al., 2020; Walker and East,
2014). Designing engagement in a way that addresses cultural differences can lead to bridging any
disconnects, what the team refers to as culturally informed cleanups (Maxwell and Kiessling, 2021).
Because effective community engagement is so context specific, it is difficult to generalize best
practices across the board (Cruz, 2019). This difficulty is seen when agencies deploy what can be an
effective community engagement method, but at the wrong time or place. Kaminstein (1996) describes
one public meeting where the hosting agency cultivated an atmosphere that was welcoming, calm,
empathetic, and reasonable. However, this approach backfired entirely. "The officials' use of
friendliness and positive reinforcement was perceived by the residents as a form of mockery"
(Kaminstein, 1996: 461). In another contentious remediation project, relationships with a majority
African American neighborhood were at a low when the agency installed a new site manager, also
African American. This move did not appease locals, who felt it was "a ploy to control them by 'one of
our own'" and, adding insult to injury, a sign that the site manager would have "very little independent
power" (Capek, 1993: 15). The next section builds upon these findings and highlights community
engagement in practice. It discusses creative examples of community engagement, the importance of
putting in the time, and how EPA practitioners deal with applying community engagement at the right
time and place.
"You're gonna hear about everything
that they've been upset with the
federal government about for their
lives... that's really hard, because we
are there for just a portion of it."
(Interviewee)
10
-------
4.2 Engagement in practice
The following three sections integrate lessons learned from practitioners along with the literature. While
not exhaustive, it provides examples of how practitioners carry out community engagement. These
examples highlight the immense variety of community engagement strategies. These sections also
discuss the amount of time that community engagement often takes, and how practitioners adapt to
different community contexts.
4.2.1 Creative examples of doing it well
Doing community engagement well entails a combination of culturally appropriate and creative
outreach, listening, capacity building, networking, and empowerment in decision-making. The social
scientific literature, EPA materials, and interviewees offer suggestions (see large box on the following
page) (EPA, 1996b, 1998b, 2001b, 2013, 2020, 2021b; Waste Programs Sub-workgroup for Community
Engagement, 2017). As examples of creative outreach, in one project, high schoolers performed a
'pump and mix dance' (Foley et al., 2017). Another included elementary school and high school
students in designing a playground and practice field for a brownfields redevelopment (Gute and Taylor,
2006).
Creative community engagement techniques from literature, interviews, surveys
Creative outreach, what: media (press conference, radio show, TV), exhibits (booth, bulletin board),
mailings (letters, neighborhood association newsletter or listserv, insert in water bill, door hangers,
mailbox flyers), documents (pamphlet, flyer, brochure, fact sheet), community-based social marketing,
the arts (artwork, poetry, songs, dance, theater), public or town hall meetings, marketplace booths, poster
sessions, signage and ads (on-site, billboards, bus ads)
Creative outreach, where: grocery store, library, community center, fairs or special events, schools,
neighborhood association, religious centers, public meetings/town halls, online (social media, project
website, email listservs), phone (hotline, 1-800#, reverse 911), YMCA, beauty salon, Rotary club, fire
department, high schools, in person (door-to-door, give presentations to local association meetings,
meetings hosted in local homes), on site (tour, open house, drop-in sessions, technology exploration)
Creative listening: door-to-door, formal consultations (e.g., community advisory groups (CAGs)), focus
groups or interviews, design charrettes, suggestion boxes, information booths, neighborhood meetings,
visioning session, survey cards, quick polls using mobile phones or web conferencing, neutral facilitator
Creative capacity building: peer-to-peer education, technical assistance grants, training workshops,
bidirectional learning, compensation, train local ambassadors
Creative networking: tap into existing social networks, host community dinners, partner with
universities or schools, hold targeted stakeholder meetings, bridging organizations
Creative empowerment in decision-making: advisory board or CAG, people's technical panel, multi-
stakeholder collaboration, consensus conference, referenda vote, public hearing
Equally important to outreach is creative listening as part of bidirectional communication and dialogue
(EPA, 2020; MacNamara, 2019; Taylor and Kent, 2014; Walker and East, 2014). EPA practitioners also
assert that listening is essential to building trust, defusing conflict, and creating consensus on solutions.
It helps ensure that multiple forms of knowledge and ways of assessing risk count are used. In order to
reduce power asymmetries and ensure that everyone can share their voice, creative capacity building for
community members and organizations is vital (EPA, 1996b, 2001b; Lehigh et al., 2020; McCloskey et
al., 2011). For example, providing technical support to communities through grants or university
11
-------
partnerships allows them to conduct their own sampling or analysis and learn about scientific
understandings of contamination and risk (Daley, 2007; Ellerbusch et al., 2006). Undertaking creative
networking can expand inclusion and participation of local constituencies (McCloskey et al., 2011;
Walker and East, 2014). Suggestions include working with bridging or boundary organizations, formal
and informal community leaders, and culture brokers (FEMA, 2019; Maxwell and Kiessling, 2021).
Creative empowerment can help amend agency-local power asymmetries (Clapp et al., 2016; Foley et
al., 2017; Perko et al., 2019; Rowe and Frewer, 2000). Indeed, in social theory, empowerment is part of
the essence of community engagement. Community
advisory groups (CAGs) or other advisory boards are
a regularly used means of doing so. Interviewees
stated that CAGs can help build trust, demonstrate
that an agency is listening, provide locals with a
voice, and smooth the path for later decisions (see box
on right). They play a role in building trust and are
associated with improved cleanup processes and outcomes (Clapp et al., 2016; Daley, 2007; Danielson
et al., 2008; EPA, 1996a, 1996b, 1998a). It should be noted, though, that a local advisory board is not a
panacea. In one case, it increased information flows between the agency and the board but not with the
broader community (Laurian, 2005). CAGs need to be constructed and managed carefully to not be
plagued by their own inclusion problems and power asymmetries.
4.2.2 Putting in the time
When there is a CAG: "Two years down the
road, when you have to come up with a
remedy that they might not totally agree with,
they feel it because they've been a part of that.
They may not agree with it, but they
understand how you got there." (Interviewee)
"Something we kept hearing over and over
and over again... that the engagement [from
federal agencies] was just too high level, and
it wasn't grassroots enough. They just didn't
want to see us on TV giving an interview.
They wanted to see us at town halls, they
wanted to see us come to their churches, they
wanted to see us come to their Rotary club
meetings, go to the YMCA ... beauty salons.
We were just driving our cars, [to] go to these
locations, hand out materials, talk to residents,
and get feedback from them." (Interviewee)
Community engagement is a long-term commitment
throughout the cleanup process (Chess and Purcell,
1999; Cundy et al., 2013; Ellerbusch et al., 2006;
Metcalf et al., 2015). It takes time, training, and
resources to carry out multiple forms of engagement
through distinct communication channels for
different constituents (see box on right). As several
of the interviewees stated, "early and often" is key to
success. This means that practitioners should start
community engagement in the site assessment or
characterization stage and should continue frequently
throughout the lifetime of a cleanup. Interviewees also explained that communities appreciated when
EPA staff took the time to become a visible member of the community, attending local events. As
discussed later in this report, this often involves going above and beyond the expected duties and
responsibilities of a cleanup practitioner. Consequently, limited resources, time availability of cleanup
practitioners, and staff turnover can impact the success of a cleanup.
4.2.3 EPA practices across cleanup types and stages
The social science literature points to the need for community engagement that adapts to social, cultural,
political, and environmental contexts. Few studies document trends in engagement strategies,
particularly in different cleanup situations. Not all outreach and engagement methods are appropriate
depending on cleanup type, stage, and cultural context. Knocking on doors, as interviewees told the
team, is a great inroad to building trust in some locations; in others, having a government representative
knock on the door is seen as intimidating and intrusive. What types of cleanups and community settings
12
-------
do practitioners actually face? What community engagement strategies are used, and when? What
factors determine the strategies that practitioners use? This section answers these questions.
"It was really hard to get people to talk
to us in some of the homes. They might
be renters, they're not owners. They don't
know if they have the right to ask, to let
us come in and sample. It took a lot of
persistence, a lot of just going back over
and over again." (Interviewee)
worried about impacts? Is the problem visible? These factors affect whether people are eager to engage
or more apathetic. Interviewees explained for example, that if community members are worried about
the health of their families, they are more likely to ask questions, and be receptive to engagement.
The team's survey data also provides unique insights into the type of cleanup sites, which can be used to
derive some conclusions regarding community engagement. EPA practitioners work on a wide variety of
cleanup sites, with nearly half working on former industrial facilities (45%) (Figure 3 next page). EPA
practitioners also work in a mix of different communities, with almost an even split between urban
(38%), suburban (29 %), and rural (26%) (Figure 4). A smaller, yet still significant, percentage of
practitioners have experience working with tribes (7%). This diversity in cleanup contexts demonstrates
why practitioners need to adjust community engagement approaches, as no two cleanups are alike.
Specifically, the interviewees stressed the impact that working with indigenous or tribal communities
can have on engagement. Interviewees explained that such engagement required different background
knowledge and usually incorporated some language translation. Indigenous communities often have
experienced long histories of environmental contamination, coupled with distrust of government/outside
entities. Some might be okay with their concerns being categorized as environmental justice; others
might not. Interviewees described how these factors sometimes made engagement challenging. A
community's history with certain types of industries can also impact engagement. For example, if the
contamination is related to an economically important business in the area, people could have a different
tolerance or perception of the risks associated with contamination. They might have priorities, such as
keeping their job, that could complicate their feelings related to the cleanup.
¦ Mining site
Industrial facility
Illegal dump site
Oil spill
Gas station
Dry cleaners
¦ Residential
¦ Federal Facility
¦ Sediment Site
¦ Other
Figure 3. Contaminated sites where EPA cleanup practitioners commonly work, weighted.
13
The team's research highlights key contexts that affect
engagement. Interviewees reported that working with renters
versus homeowners requires a different approach (see box
on left). They explained that renters might be hesitant or
resistant to engagement attempts because of uncertainty over
permission for property access. Another related aspect is the
level of interest and knowledge about a site amongst the
community. Are people interested in the site, and are they
-------
Figure 4. Types of communities where EPA cleanup practitioners work on sites, weighted.
Additionally, the survey data shows that as practitioners work through different cleanup stages, their
approaches to community engagement change (Table 3). Some strategies are more common in the
beginning of a cleanup (evaluating contamination) versus the end (redeveloping the site). For example,
the second most common community engagement strategy in the beginning of a cleanup is door-to-door
visits (18.7%), yet in the final stage of cleanup, the strategy of door-to-door visits is only used by 5.1%
of practitioners. However, the data also shows that certain strategies remain highly utilized throughout
the cleanup process, no matter the stage. Public meetings and fact sheets are two common strategies that
are highly utilized from cleanup beginning to end.
Table 3. Engagement Strategies Used by Cleanup Stage, Column Percentage, Weighted
Strategy
Cleanup Stage, Column Percentage, Weighted
Evaluating
contamination
at the site
Deciding on
cleanup
actions
Doing the
cleanup
Completing
the cleanup
Redeveloping
the site
Door-to-door visits
18.7
5.9
13.6
7.4
5.1
Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)
2.3
3.1
5.8
6.7
7.0
EPA websites
11.6
10.8
13.9
19.9
12.5
Fact sheets or flyers
18.3
19.7
23.2
23.0
15.5
Phone calls or text messages
7.0
3.0
7.0
3.9
2.0
Community advisory groups
10.8
16.9
9.6
9.6
14.2
Public meetings or town hall meetings
21.7
33.5
20.1
21.2
25.1
Other
4.4
3.8
3.8
3.3
4.2
N/A - This cleanup stage is not relevant to my work
5.2
3.3
2.9
5.2
14.4
Total
100
100
100
100
100
Note: N/A = not applicable. Respondents could choose up to two strategies per stage. Some respondents chose more than two
strategies per stage (e.g., by selecting "Other" and providing an open-ended text response).
14
-------
These results, highlighting the nuances of community engagement during cleanups, demonstrate that the
type of strategy matters depending on the temporal context. The data suggests that not every strategy is
effective, or perhaps appropriate, in every stage of cleanup. Practitioners assess the situation and the
needs of the community before they decide the engagement approach. While public meetings might be
the cornerstone of engagement because they are a mandated requirement for many cleanups, the data
show that other non-mandated strategies are important as well (e.g., door-to-door visits, CAGs, and
phone calls). This means that practitioners are often going "above and beyond" requirements for
community involvement, pointing again to the time commitment discussed in the previous section.
4.3 Practical takeaways
1. Government agency, community, interactive, and external factors affect how and why
community engagement plays out as it does in each cleanup.
2. Agencies need to be attentive to power asymmetries, whose knowledge counts, emotions, cross-
cultural communication mismatches, and using the right method at the right time and place.
3. Practitioners should draw on creative approaches to outreach, listening, capacity building,
networking, and empowerment. Approaches differ depending on the site, community, and
cleanup stage.
4. Community engagement requires significant time commitments. Proactive works better than
reactive.
5. Key elements of successful community engagement are to cultivate stable community partners, a
common understanding of the issue, consensus on a vision for the future, and willingness to
collaborate.
Table 4. Meeting Challenges in Engagement
Community Engagement Actions for Effective Community Engagement
Challenges
Resource limitations \1;iiiiI;iiii coiiliiiiul> of site know leduc and relationships if stall luriio\ or.
Uneven participation I Create a stakeholder map. Cultivate relationships with leaders of historically under-
represented constituencies.
I.earn about and address local priorities and \allies,
find a misled coniniuuiis partner
\ddress siriiclnral harriers in participation (e.u.. clnldcarei
Whose knowledge counts Include local know led no and address ciininlali\ e risks
Do nol ireal local risk percepiions as lesser ilian auenc> approaches.
Emotional burden lla\ca sironu. neutral facililalor rim town hall nieelinus
I iiicouraue sialT lo use l!niplo\ee \ssisiance hourani resources.
Cross-cultural mismatches Seek feedback from culture brokers on materials before sharum
Self-reflect on cultural assumptions beiuu made
5 Building trust
In this section you will learn about:
- What social science says about institutional and interpersonal trust
- How practitioners build trust during cleanups
- Social factors that negatively affect trust
- How to know when you have built trust
This section begins by explaining the underlying social science of trust between communities and
agencies, breaking it down into trust in the institution, the person, and the management process or
15
-------
outcome. It then turns to practice, presenting evidence from the literature and research findings on
strategies EPA cleanup personnel use to build trust. It addresses factors that can break trust and
techniques EPA personnel use to gauge when trust is achieved.
5.1 Theory of trust
Cleanup practitioners and researchers alike identify trust as a central component to community
engagement and, indeed, to cleanup progress and outcomes as a whole (Bowen et al., 2010; Danielson et
al., 2008; EPA, 2001b; Foley et al., 2017; Little, 2009; Metcalf et al., 2015). But what is trust, exactly? In
the social sciences literature, it is conceptualized as "a psychological state in which one actor (the trustor)
accepts some form of vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of
another (the trustee), despite inherent uncertainties" (Stern and Coleman, 2015: 118-19). Trusting is not
simply a rational act based on objective facts; it involves emotions and observations that get interpreted
through the trustor's mental models (Gray et al., 2012).
Scientists have identified multiple dimensions of trust in government agencies (Davenport et al., 2007;
Mabon and Kawabe, 2018; Smith et al., 2013; Stern and Coleman, 2015). Social scientists distinguish
between institutional trust in the management process and/or in management outcomes, along with
interpersonal trust in individual representatives of an agency. Trust varies, depending on trustor's
dispositional, or baseline levels of trustingness, their perceptions of the trustee's moral and technical
competence, expectations of management outcomes, and a combination of emotions, values, identity, and
beliefs. Trust in scientists involves similar factors, i.e., trustor perceptions about scientists' competence,
benevolence or warmth, integrity or honesty, and openness or willingness to listen (Besley et al., 2020).
These interpersonal and institutional dimensions of trust all come into play in cleanup work (Figure 5).
Institutional
"Management process
"Management outcome
"Moral & technical competen
Trust
Trustor characteristics
•Disposition
•Expectations
•Identity, culture
•Values, beliefs
Interpersonal
•Competence
•Honesty
•Warmth
•Willingness to listen
Figure 5. Components of trust in cleanup work.
Interestingly, an increase in trust does not necessarily lead to an increase in public participation. Smith et
al. (2013) find that those who trust most easily are less likely to become involved with natural resource
management, possibly because these people trust agencies to carry out the actions they say they will do. In
another study, public interest in a contaminated site declined over time: as EPA built up trust with the
public, the public felt less need to be involved (Danielson et al., 2008).
Building trust during environmental cleanups requires action on several fronts as relationships among
different parties, spatial scale of the contaminated site, institutional level (e.g., federal, state), scientific
16
-------
uncertainty, and timing all come into play (Danielson et al., 2008; Gray et al., 2012; Mabon and Kawabe,
2018; Metcalf et al., 2015; Prior and Rai, 2017; Stern and Coleman, 2015). EPA practitioners highlight the
need to build trust within and among several different parties (e.g., community-agency, intra-community,
agency-PRP, inter-agency, PRP-community). Brownfields redevelopment is supported by fostering trust
among community members, not just community-agency (Ellerbusch et al., 2006). Danielson et al. (2008)
observe a chain of trust connecting EPA to a CAG to the broader community; this chain was built up and
broken down throughout the course of the remediation.
Social factors that support trust building include identifying and articulating shared values and culture
(Danielson et al., 2008; Davenport et al., 2007; Gray et al., 2012; Prior et al., 2014). Techniques for
identifying salient values can be borrowed from the social sciences (Appendix 10.3). Doing so is not
easy, though, if there are dozens or more involved parties, each of whom has multiple values that could
be internally inconsistent or inchoate (Gray et al., 2012). The next section unpacks the difficult process
of building trust and details the approaches practitioners use.
5.2 Building trust in practice
This section focuses on real-world examples of how practitioners build trust with communities. Readers
might notice reoccurring trends between this and previous sections. This highlights the overlap between
trust building and community engagement, how each relies upon or builds upon the other. Because it can
be difficult to know when trust has been achieved, the discussion also covers how trust might be broken
and the signs of successful trust building.
5.2.1 Processes for building trust
This report groups techniques for building trust into six elements: showing up, communicating,
listening, learning, sharing, and respecting (Figure 6) (Burger et al., 2005; Christopher et al., 2008;
Danielson et al., 2008; Ellerbusch et al., 2006; EPA, 2001b; Foley et al., 2017; Kaminstein, 1996;
Mabon and Kawabe, 2018; Metcalf et al., 2015; Perko et al., 2019; Till and Meyer, 2001).
Showing up 1
• Immerse yourself in the community
• Be on site frequently
Communicating
k. A
• Use plain language
• Open and transparent
"1
Listening
l A
• Listen to people's ideas and goals
• Show that you care
Learning
• Get to know them
• Learn how people react
Sharing
• Share a drink or a meal
• Identify a common experience
Respecting
• Respect perspectives & knowledge
• Be inclusive & honest
Figure 6. Elements of trust building.
17
-------
Some techniques that practitioners use are specific to environmental cleanups. Interviewees and survey
respondents recommended using technical assistance grants to provide neutral science support to
communities, for example. They spoke about the importance of clearly explaining how an agency's
mission area and responsibilities affect the actions they can take in cleanups. They underscored the
importance of being honest about environmental sampling results and risk assessment. Supporting
community advisory groups (CAGs) was also suggested as a technique for fostering relationships, and in
turn, building trust.
The survey and interview evidence aligns with the literature in terms of how trust building actions
cluster into six elements (see box below). Part of respect for practitioners is always being honest and
following through when you promise to do something such as
report back on sampling findings. Although most participants did
not articulate trust building in terms of emotions, the way they did
express themselves backs up literature findings that trust building
occurs through affective processes. Cleanup practitioners don't just build trust by sharing accurate
information, they build trust by showing that they care (see box above right).
Strategies for building trust in cleanups, from interviews and surveys
Showing up:
"Just showing up, just being there and then being available and being consistent builds trust."
"The fact that we were out there, and they saw us, and they knew they could call us if there was a
problem, that made a big difference."
Communicating:
"You might not have all those answers at a public meeting. Letting a person know: okay, I can get back
to you. Give me your name and number."
"Checking in: so what questions do you have? Does that make sense?"
Listening:
"Being open to listening to people, listening to their concerns."
"Listening... that's the biggest thing."
Learning:
"Sitting down with people, looking at them in the eyes and saying: all right, let's understand what the
problem is."
"One thing in particular is never walking into a room thinking that I know everything."
Sharing:
"I was sitting here with these tribal members, and they were giving me their traditional foods."
Respecting:
"You speak to people straight, face to face, and be honest with them."
"I try to treat people as I would be treated if I was in their circumstance."
Table 5 lists the trust building strategies deemed most effective by survey respondents. Top strategies
were: follow up on responding to questions from community members (20.6%), have one-on-one or
small group meetings (19.6%), and partner with trusted local leaders (15.5%). Successful trust building
requires community engagement, and vice-versa.
"First, you have to show you
care." (EPA practitioner)
18
-------
Table 5. Most Effective Strategies for Building Trust with the Community During Cleanups, Weighted
Strategy
Percentage,
Weighted
One-on-one or small group meetings with community members
19.6%
Follow up on and respond to questions from community members
20.6%
Partner with trusted local leaders
15.5%
Public participation in decision-making
12.2%
Be on-site as much as possible
11.1%
Participate in community events
3.8%
Discuss the science behind cleanups with community members
5.9%
Discuss the role EPA plays in cleanups
7.3%
Translate materials into different languages
3.0%
Other
1.0%
Note: Most of the "other" responses were iterations of the listed strategies.
Trust building strategies varied by cleanup role (Table 6). OSCs and CICs prefer one-on-one or small
group meetings; brownfields managers rely more on partnerships and participatory processes. More than
any other cleanup role, OSCs noted that being on-site as much as possible helps them to build trust.
Table 6. Trust Building Strategies Employed by Cleanup Role, Weighted
Cleanup Role
Strategy
Frequency, Weighted)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
One-on-one or small
group meetings
Following up on and
responding to questions
Partnering with trusted
local leaders
Public participation in
decision-making
Being on-site as much as
possible
Participating in
communitv events
Discussing the science
behind cleanups
Discussing the role EPA
plays in cleanups
Translating materials
into different languages
Other
On-scene Coordinator
68.1
53.5
41.0
13.3
65.7
4.1
11.5
22.5
12.1
7.0
Community Involvement Coordinator
79.4
51.0
44.3
52.0
21.5
8.9
15.6
8.9
12.8
5.0
Site Assessor
41.9
80.6
58.1
38.7
19.4
0.0
41.9
19.4
0.0
0.0
Remedial Project Manager
57.3
68.6
43.7
39.4
29.7
14.2
15.9
19.6
6.0
9.0
RCRA Corrective Action Manager
37.8
69.8
51.8
37.8
12.3
8.5
38.7
32.1
5.7
3.0
Brownfields Manager
48.4
41.4
62.0
62.1
13.8
20.7
3.4
27.6
10.3
3.0
Management
57.7
62.9
41.6
45.8
20.1
7.2
19.7
14.9
7.3
9.0
Other (Specify)
48.2
51.8
52.3
33.2
21.5
19.3
28.5
28.0
17.2
0.0
Note: Respondents could choose three responses; thus, rows and columns will not add to 100 percent.
19
-------
Practitioners talked extensively about building trust through place-based interactions, suggesting that
location matters. Rather than solely relying on community members to come to a meeting, EPA
practitioners go to where people already gather (see box on left).
They go to hardware stores, barber shops, and restaurants. They
visit parks, community centers, and other public gathering spaces.
They attend city council meetings and local festivals. Many of
these interactions are informal, which reduces the pressure that
community members and practitioners both can feel in more
formal venues such as a town hall meeting.
Building trust takes time (see box on right) and depends on timing. It is easier to establish trust when
interactions begin early in the process and remain consistent and frequent throughout. Meeting one-on-
one with community members, being on-site, translating materials, attending local events, and the other
trust building strategies listed in Table 5 are
time intensive. Practitioners describe trust
building as a phased process, involving multiple
steps that build upon one another, gradually
connecting with more people over time. This
research shows that trust building is a weighty
part of a practitioner's duties and suggests that
limits to staff resources—especially time-
impact how much trust building can take place
and how effective it is. Timing is especially
crucial when working with tribes. Interviewees explained how tribal histories of trauma and broken
government promises created mistrust. This legacy is not easy to overcome. It takes large investments of
time and care on the part of EPA staff working with indigenous peoples and tribal governments.
5.2.2 Factors that negatively affect trust
Building trust does not take place in a social vacuum. Factors that negatively affect trust in cleanup
processes are: negative experience with an agency, mistrust in science or government, limited
engagement, change in community composition, unclear communication, competing messages, delay in
promised action, weak facilitation, staff turnover, lack of transparency in agency decisions, and power
asymmetries (Capek, 1993; Clapp et al., 2016;
EPA, 1996b; Foley et al., 2017; Metcalf et al.,
2015). Practitioners encounter individuals or
entire communities who mistrust "the
government" or science, or distrust EPA as a
"regulatory agency" (see box on right). Factors
that negatively affect trust in cleanup
outcomes are: competing values, conflicting
messages, slow progress, perceived closeness of agency to PRP or CAG to agency, changing stories,
inter-agency conflicts, and not giving straight answers to questions (Capek, 1993; Danielson et al., 2008;
Kaminstein, 1996; Metcalf et al., 2015). Interviewees also mentioned that they have walked into cleanup
situations where changing narratives and conflicting messages had eroded trust.
"One of the benefits we reaped by
going door to door was, we were
able to form these relationships
with folks in the community who
were really respected, and we
were able to start employing them
as ambassadors." (Interviewee)
"Building of trust [at a Superfund site] took a decade
and required great sacrifices of time, resources and
power by all actors." (Danielson et al., 2008: 58)
"It's [trust] not something you just get, you gotta
earn it." (Interviewee)
"It took a LOT of work, years and years, to build
trust in [tribal] communities, so they would believe
that we're going to take the actions that we're
promising." (Interviewee)
"[The community says], 'We don't want government
anywhere near us. We would rather have these
mountainous piles of asbestos in our backyards than
have you here.' I've gone there a number of times.
We've held meetings, we've met with town
officials... the answer hasn't changed in 10 years."
(Interviewee)
20
-------
Factors that negatively affect interpersonal trust in cleanup practitioners are: staff turnover, disconnects
between statements and behaviors, unfamiliarity with an agency, limited information sharing, scientific
jargon, perceived lack of technical competence, and delays between collecting data and sharing results
(Capek, 1993; Danielson et al., 2008; Kaminstein, 1996; Mabon and Kawabe, 2018; Metcalf et al.,
2015). In one Superfund cleanup, a resident wryly pointed out the discrepancy between agencies
insisting the site was safe, yet contractors came out to do sampling dressed in "moon suits" (Capek,
1993: 15). Information sharing in a way that builds trust is more than getting the facts right; it depends
on the quantity of information shared, in a timely way, at the right level of technical detail—too high
and too low are both problematic for community
members (Capek, 1993; Foley et al., 2017; Folk, 1991;
Kaminstein, 1996). Having so many factors affect
trust in the process, outcome, and person, means that
must employ a variety of strategies to build trust. EPA
practitioners recognize that trust is fragile and can
easily be broken (see box on right). Once broken, it is
difficult to regain.
5.2.3 How do you know when you've built trust?
A novel finding from the team's research is how practitioners perceive successful trust building. EPA
practitioners gauge that they have successfully built trust when they have open and transparent
communication with locals (20.4%), receive feedback from locals (19.8%), and get few complaints or
questions (10.2%) (Table 7). Interestingly, "community participation" and "lack of community interest"
are both signs of trust. This apparent dichotomy can be explained by how increases in locals' trust in the
outcome can actually lead to decreases in public interest, as people come to trust that a cleanup remedy
will help resolve environmental and health problems; conversely, increases in community member trust
in the process can lead to increased engagement, because people feel as though the mechanisms for
including their opinions really do work.
Table 7. Top Ways Practitioners Gauge Trust with Community Members, Unweighted
How you can tell you've built trust
Percentage, Unweighted
Open/transparent communication
20.4%
Feedback from locals
19.8%
Few complaints/questions
10.2%
Community participation
9.3%
Community's questions are answered
5.6%
Access permission/assistance from locals
4.2%
Shift in tone
4.0%
Lack of community interest
3.6%
Respect
2.9%
Contact about different projects
2.7%
Embraced by community
2.7%
Community believes what you tell them
2.0%
Lack of negative media coverage
2.0%
Development of local relationships
1.6%
"Because trust was broken, the science didn't
matter." (Interviewee)
"People really didn't trust the narrative that
the government was telling them. It didn't
matter if it was the city, the state, or the
federal government because the story had
changed so many times." (Interviewee)
21
-------
Interviewees mentioned that a sign of having built trust is when community members ask them for help
with issues beyond a single site. Interview and survey results show that building trust involves a two-
way process, an engagement, talking with community members and responding to their needs. This
suggests that trust building relies upon strong relationships between agency practitioners and community
members (see Section 6).
5.3 Practical takeaways
1. Trust among multiple parties (agency, community, PRP, CAG) is essential to cleanups.
2. Three dimensions of trust are included in cleanup work: in the process, the outcome, and the person.
3. Practices for building trust can be categorized as: showing up, communicating, listening, learning,
sharing, and respecting.
4. Trust building is time intensive.
5. Trust waxes and wanes over the course of a cleanup.
6. Practitioners can look for signs of how well they've built trust in the process, outcome, and person.
Table 8. Actions for Building Trust
When You Encounter Actions to Build Trust
General mistrust Ackiinu ledge pasi Manillas and slum \nu cure
T;ike sieps in hmkl iiilerpersniial irusi
I Inld lisicimig sessimis and address cniicenis llial mised
Unclear messaging/competing i Get feedback on how your messages are landing from culture brokers
information || (e.g., what is too much or too little scientific jargon).
(nnrdniale w illi oilier agencies on cniiimiiiiicaliniis
Distrust in your agency j Be transparent about where your data is coming from and what your
decisions are based upon.
\ckiinu ledue iiiicerlaiiiu A: know ledue uaps li'snkas In sa>. 'I dnn'i
know, hul I will ir> in uel llial answer l'ni \nii." as Inim as\nu I'nllnu
llirniigh
Unfamiliarity with an agency Make \miiscll \ isihle in llie cnniniiimls
I Aplani \nur aucncs s mission, responsibilities, and liniiialinns
6 Building relationships in cleanup work
In this section you will learn about:
- How relationship building benefits cleanups
- Practices for building relationships
Obstacles to building relationships
This section discusses the theory and practice of building relationships with community members, local
government, state or federal agencies, business, and other organizations. It uses research findings to help
construct theory about how building relationships affects cleanup processes and outcomes. It teases out
specifics of how practices overlap with building trust and carrying out engagement.
6.1 Building theory about building relationships
The literature on community engagement in environmental work describes it as "relationships among
partners" and a "process of building relationships" (MacNamara, 2019; McCloskey et al., 2011; Waste
Programs Sub-workgroup for Community Engagement, 2017). It says less about how to go about
building relationships in cleanups, and with whom. The team's research investigates practices for
building relationships with social actors inside and outside the community, including representatives of
22
-------
business, government agencies, and organizations (e.g., non-profit, contractor, county health department,
state environmental agency, PRP). As such, it contributes to theory building on this topic. EPA
practitioners associated building relationships with benefits for the cleanup process and outcomes (Table
9). The top reason cited was that it facilitates greater trust (21.9%), demonstrating the intrinsic
connection between relationships and trust. Other reasons included how it benefits the cleanup process
by keeping it on budget and on schedule (11%) and preventing problems (4.4%).
Table 9. Top Ten Reported Benefits of Building Relationships, Unweighted
Relationship-Building Benefits
Percentage, Unweighted
Facilitates greater community trust/support
21.9
Keeps budget/schedule on target
11.0
Essential for success
10.0
Facilitates a collaborative effort
8.5
Incorporates community needs/perspectives
6.0
Provides local information
5.4
Facilitates spread of information
5.2
Helps prevent problems
4.4
Opens communication
3.8
Eases access issues
3.3
Interviewees described interactions with other organizations in interpersonal terms that express the
importance of relationships (e.g., sister agency, our state partners, my counterparts, our contractors, my
guys). They also explained how building relationships benefits cleanups (see box below). One way is by
putting a face to the agency to create interpersonal and, subsequently, institutional trust. On a practical
level, EPA personnel need to make connections with other experts, topical specialists who can address
local concerns outside of the Agency's purview and expertise (e.g., property values, health, preserving
trees during yard remediation). Along with making connections, they also need to build trust among
cleanup workers (e.g., contractors, state counterparts).
Relationships benefit cleanup work in different ways, from interviewees
Put a face to the agency: "I would always be around as we started work on each home to basically
answer questions... they have a face instead of just saying "EPA." There is a, I don't want to say they
trust me necessarily, but there is a general trust, and they know me. I think that's really important because
a lot of times when it goes south it's because they just have an agency to blame instead of a person. They
always have contact with me, even if it's just to ask a simple question."
Make connections with other experts: "If they're concerned about property values because they have
this plume of contamination now in their neighborhood, then maybe working with a local official who can
talk to them or realtor who can talk to them about the factors that go into determining their property values
or their tax assessments and those kinds of issues."
Build trust among cleanup workers: "We have a team [of contractors]. These are guys I've worked with
for a really long time. I trust these guys a lot to be out in the residential area... [they] know the community
very well... I know these guys... know what they're doing. We just check in every day."
Interviewees articulated two long term ripple effects of relationship building (see box next page). One is
when EPA serves as a convener of social actors and organizations for a specific cleanup (e.g., a task
force, roundtable). This action serves as a catalyst for enduring relationships that allow members to
23
-------
work together on other environmental problems. Another is when building relationships during one
cleanup leads to word of mouth referrals that spark action at other sites.
Long term ripple effects of relationship building, from interviewees
EPA as convener and catalyst: "by having all these different stakeholders at the table, those
relationships can be fostered... we will be talking about [the site] when we're meeting... However, if
there are issues you're concerned about like green space in your neighborhood or., it being a food desert...
talk about that with [the other organizations present] ... Hopefully you are developing a good relationship
with these other entities, you can have a conversation about that outside of [this activity]/'
Word of mouth referrals: "some of our referrals have come from local municipalities where we had a
spill in the area. Talking with the responders and emergency management agency coordinators or a
township trustee about "what do you guys do [at EPA]?" Maybe a year down the road, they say, "Hey, I
remember meeting you. We have this [other] site here." It's word of mouth, too."
6.2 Building relationships in practice
Cleanup workers need to be able to
work with all types of organizations
and personalities (see box on right).
Doing real time relationship
building during emergencies or time-
critical removals, puts additional
pressure on practitioners at a time
decisions need to be made and trust
needs to be built quickly. While
building relationships is largely
positive, it is not without challenges. The top obstacle identified by survey respondents was limited time
(32%), which relates to it requiring a long-term commitment (9%) (Figure 7). Preconceived notions
(29%) created the need for people to overcome misconceptions about one another. Resources (12%)
were financial and non-financial. "Other" responses included limited travel to sites. "Make it work" was
when respondents said that you just make it happen, even if it means going "above and beyond."
¦ Limited time availability
Preconceived notions
Resources
Other (Specify)
Requires a long-term commitment
Lack of networking opportunities
¦ Make it work
Note: The 'Make it work' category makes up less than 1 percent of all responses.
Figure 7. Biggest obstacles to building relationships, weighted.
24
What building relationships takes, from interviewees
Work with all types: "It's always a different mixture... of
folks. They're always incredibly unique and have their own
character."
Real time relationship building: "[In emergency response,]
we never have dealt with any of the personality types... we've
probably never met any of these people... we're trying to build
relationships in quick time, so we can all achieve that goal."
0.27%
-------
EPA cleanup workers use a number of practices to build relationships with businesses, other agencies,
and organizations (Table 10). The top strategies survey respondents listed were listening to social actor
needs (10.1%), communicating regularly and openly (9.8%), and starting communication early in the
cleanup process (9%). Other recommendations for how to build relationships at the local scale are
spending time in the community, hiring locals, supporting community events, offering volunteer
opportunities, and having consistent and strong facilitation at meetings and gatherings (Christopher et
al., 2008; Davenport et al., 2007; Foley et al., 2017). Meeting facilitation is included as a relationship
building strategy because it helps rein in emotional outbursts and personal attacks (Foley et al., 2017).
Table 10. Top Ten Categories of Advice for New Colleagues on Building Relationships, Unweighted
Percentage,
Advice Category
Unweighted
Listen to needs/concerns/goals
10.1
Communicate regularly and openly
9.8
Start early
9.0
Be honest, open, and transparent
7.9
Keep the community informed
5.9
Set clear and realistic expectations/goals/boundaries
5.9
Seek cooperation and collaboration
5.3
Make contact personal (face-to-face or phone)
5.1
Build relationships
4.5
Show interest in the community
4.2
Cleanup practitioner advice on building relationships uses similar language to that of engagement and
trust, i.e., "listening to needs/concerns/goals," "start early," and "be honest, open, and transparent." This
overlap in terms is indicative of how these techniques feed off one another and are not wholly distinct in
practice. Creating relationships with a person makes it possible to build interpersonal trust. Making
connections with other experts ties into trust building strategies of bringing other experts to the table and
being clear about what EPA can and cannot do. This similarity of language and advice is also indicative
of how community engagement, building relationships, and trust are themselves interrelated.
6.3 Practical takeaways
1. Practitioners take active measures to cultivate relationships with federal, state, and local
government agencies, businesses, and organizations as part of cleanup work.
2. Building relationships leads to short and long term benefits for remediation, removal, and
redevelopment work.
3. The primary challenges are lack of time, resources, and preconceived notions that social actors
and organizations have about one another.
4. Building relationships is part of emergency response, but under additional time pressure.
Table 11. Building Relationships in Cleanups
Take Action By Doing This
Be present ( ;in> iml niliirm;il check-ins
"IVk up llic plume"
Positive associations Slmim. iicninil nieeliiiu l;ialil;ilioii
Support amimuiiiis c\ails
Real time relationship building I lelp sl;il f he ;ihle lo work u illi ";ill 1> pes"
25
-------
7 Discussion
The following discussion presents some final thoughts on how engagement is connected with
relationships and trust. It addresses lingering questions the reader may have regarding how community
engagement intersects with community empowerment, and discusses caveats about the concept of best
practices. The discussion concludes with thoughts on future research possibilities.
7.1 Interconnections among relationships, trust, engagement
This report unpacks the social, psychological, cultural, behavioral, and institutional dynamics of what it
means to engage communities, build trust, and build relationships as part of cleanup work. Community
engagement has cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions, meaning that the ways people think,
feel, and act all play a role in how it unfolds and the effects it has on cleanup processes and outcomes.
Researchers and practitioners articulate a number of benefits that these activities can provide if done
well. Using these practices to carry out culturally informed cleanups is essential to advancing
environmental justice and equity in land remediation and community revitalization.
Through ethnographic research with environmental agency personnel, this research synthesizes
techniques used for community engagement and building trust and relationships in environmental
cleanup work. It analyzes these practices using social science theory and illustrates the practical ways in
which theoretical observations can be operationalized. It contributes to theory building through its
attention to how community engagement, trust, and relationships are interrelated throughout the course
of cleanups that take place in distinct social and environmental contexts (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Community engagement, relationships, and trust have interrelated social processes.
7.2 Engagement and empowerment
Social scientists conceptualize community engagement as inclusive of community empowerment. A
comprehensive analysis of public participation in decision-making for remediation, removals, and
redevelopment is beyond the scope of this report. This research does illuminate tensions that can
complicate attempts to make engagement truly meaningful and empowering at the local level. In one
analysis of community engagement in the environmental health sector, the author quotes an informant as
26
-------
saying: "We come in, we take their power away, and then we give it back to them and then go, 'Oh look,
we empowered you'" (Little, 2009: 103). Public participation guidance positions government agencies
as having the power to establish what level of participation is desired (EPA, 2019c). The National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), an advisory body to the EPA, has published model
guidance for doing public participation in ways that address such disparities (NEJAC, 2013).
Engagement and trust building practices are affected by power asymmetries within and among the
organizations and social groups involved. These asymmetries affect inclusion—who comes to the table
and who has a voice at the table. They are tied to 'whose knowledge counts,' that is, how readily distinct
forms of knowledge (e.g., scientific data, local experiences) are legible in risk assessments, remedy
selection, and redevelopment plans. Deliberate attention to addressing these asymmetries in power and
knowledge, and to fostering inclusion, are part of carrying out engagement and trust building in ways
that advance justice, equity, and other normative values. Doing so is especially needed in places that
have been overburdened by pollution/toxicity, and experienced long histories of marginalization,
exclusion, and breaking of trust. Government agencies might be hampered by logistical and policy
constraints in taking steps to remedy asymmetries. Environmental justice organizations, for example,
advocate for providing food and childcare at meetings and paying locals for their time and expertise.
These steps can remove burdens on participation often felt by community members. Federal and state
agencies, however, might not have the authorization to spend funds in this manner.
7.3 What is best?
Readers might have noticed that this report does not use the term "best practices." That choice is
deliberate. First, it is difficult to generalize best practices in community engagement across the board
because they are so situational (Cruz, 2019). This research shows how practices are specific to the
cleanup type, stage, site, and cultural context. Second, what constitutes "best practices" is in the eye of
the beholder. As the literature shows, there can be cross-cultural communication or right method/wrong
time or place mismatches with even the most well-intended engagement. This project examines
environmental agency perspectives on engagement, trust, and relationships. Additional research is
needed to investigate how communities and affected populations perceive specific actions and
approaches. As an example, the authors of this report conducted a training session on the intersection of
culture and brownfields redevelopment at the 2019 National Brownfields Training Conference. The
author's ran a brownfields feud game, where the top eight answers to each question were based on the
interview results. Participants came from state and local agencies and non-profits. In answer to the
question "How do you build trust with locals?" one of the top EPA answers was to make sure you do
"sound science." None of the game players selected this answer, however, indicating a potential cultural
disconnect regarding the role of science in building trust.
Another reason the report does not use the term "best practices" is that, as readers have seen, it depends
on how one carries out a specific action. For example, public meetings are a common practice across
cleanup types and stages. However, they are not always conducive to advancing the conversation,
developing consensus, or building relationships and trust (Carr and Halvorsen, 2001; Chess and Purcell,
1999; Jenkins et al., 2012; Rowe and Frewer, 2000). Interviewees also noted that public meetings can be
particularly contentious encounters, more so than one-on-one or small group meetings. The team heard
about the many steps practitioners take before and after a meeting to ensure it goes well, with
meaningful dialogue and building connections. Appendix 10.2 lists EPA resources that have more
detailed information on carrying out these steps for public meetings and other forms of engagement.
27
-------
7.4 Remaining research gaps
This research took place near the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. As it sought to develop a
baseline of EPA practices, it did not specifically examine how engagement has changed as a result of
changing health and safety protocols. Research gaps include: has the pandemic altered agency actions?
Which emergent practices are adaptable to post-pandemic cleanups? How has the pandemic affected
civic participation, risk perception, social networks, and trust on the part of communities and
populations living near contaminated sites? What is the emotional toll of this type of work on cleanup
practitioners, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic? How can policies and processes
address practitioner burnout?
A comprehensive treatment of how to evaluate community engagement is also beyond the scope of this
report. Appendix 10.3 contains resources on evaluation criteria and methods. Along with formal
evaluation, ongoing reflective practice supports culturally informed community engagement, trust
building, and relationship building (Christopher et al., 2008; Maxwell and Kiessling, 2021). However,
future research could address developing and testing holistic frameworks for evaluation that incorporate
culturally informed perspectives. Additionally, case study research could test community engagement
methods in specific contexts (e.g., rural or tribal communities) and compare outcomes.
28
-------
8 Conclusion
This report bridges theory and practice, providing a social scientific basis for the how's and why's of
community engagement, building trust, and building relationships as part of environmental cleanup
work. It showcases practices used at EPA, detailing how they differ across cleanup stages and situations.
The team identified six main takeaways.
Community engagement, building trust, and building relationships are central to environmental cleanup
processes and outcomes. The scientific literature and EPA practitioners are in agreement that these
actions support clean up progress and positive social and environmental outcomes. Interviewees and
survey respondents expressed both instrumental and normative benefits of engagement, that it "pays
dividends" to build trust, and that relationship building has positive impacts in the short and long term.
These practices are part of carrying out culturally-informed cleanups.
All types of cleanup practitioners undertake the above in their work, to varying extents. CICs often
undertake the lead on preparing community involvement plans and leading engagement. This research
shows that cleanup practitioners across the board all spend time and energy on community engagement.
They work to build institutional trust in cleanup processes and outcomes, as well as interpersonal trust.
They build relationships with individuals and organizations at federal, state, tribal, and local levels.
A (social) science is behind the how and why of community engagement, trust, and relationship building.
The social scientific literature illuminates what community engagement is and how it unfolds as a social
phenomenon. It helps unpack the psychological underpinnings of what it means to build trust in
government agencies, and what actions contribute to gaining or losing trust. It illustrates how the
seemingly intangible act of building relationships has material impacts. It provides insights into why
there could be uneven participation at the local level.
Social, cultural, institutional, and power dynamics affect how it plays out on the ground. A number of
challenges can derail community engagement. Some challenges stem from agency constraints, such as
staff turnover, others from community dynamics and capacity, more still from the interactions among
social actors and institutions, and external factors. Building trust and relationships, especially when
beginning from a situation of mistrust or distrust, takes time and requires attention to social, cultural,
historical, political, and environmental circumstances.
It takes time, effort, resources, skills, and commitment to do it well. The many challenges to engagement
mean that it takes an investment of time, resources, and skills to do well. This investment is needed to
prepare fact sheets or plan public meetings in ways that are appropriate to the situation, address
asymmetries in power and 'whose knowledge counts,' and bridge cultural differences. Empathetic
listening is a skill to be cultivated. Building trust and relationships take time, and trust can easily be
broken with a misstep. Management and leadership support are essential to sustain this commitment.
EPA cleanup practitioners use a number of strategies in different cleanup types, stages, and cultural
contexts. They often go "above and beyond" community involvement requirements, employing strategies
that correspond with techniques from the literature. Many similarities were identified between practices
discussed in the literature and practices detailed by interview and survey respondents. "Early and often"
was a common refrain, along with "door-to-door" and "listening." The dovetailing of theory and practice
is encouraging that community engagement can be done in a way that is meaningful to locals and
empowers public participation, enabling cleanups to advance environmental justice and equity along
with achieving environmental goals.
29
-------
9 References
Allen, B.L. 2003. Uneasy Alchemy: Citizens and Experts in Louisiana's Chemical Corridor Disputes
(MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.).
Allen, B.L. 2007. Environmental justice, local knowledge, and after-disaster planning in New Orleans
Technology in Society 29(2): 153-59.
Apitz, S.E., et al. 2018. Stakeholder value-linked sustainability assessment: evaluating remedial
alternatives for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Portland, Oregon, USA Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management 14(1): 43-62.
Beckett, C., and A. Keeling. 2019. Rethinking remediation: mine reclamation, environmental justice,
and relations of care Local Environment 24(3): 216-30.
Besley, J.C., N.M. Lee, and G. Pressgrove. 2020. Reassessing the variables used to measure public
perceptions of scientists Science Communication 43(1): 3-32.
Bowen, F., A. Newenham-Kahindi, and I. Herremans. 2010. When suits meet roots: the antecedents and
consequences of community engagement strategy Journal of Business Ethics 95(2): 297-318.
Brown, P., V. de la Rosa, and A. Cordner. 2020. Toxic trespass: science, activism, and policy
concerning chemicals in our bodies, in T. Davis and A. Mah (eds.), Toxic Truths: Environmental
Justice and Citizen Science in a Global Age (Manchester University Press: Manchester).
Burger, J., et al. 2005. Science, policy, and stakeholders: Developing a consensus science plan for
Amchitka Island, Aleutians, Alaska Environmental Management 35(5): 557-68.
Calloway, E.E., et al. 2020. Exploring community psychosocial stress related to per- and poly-
fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination: lessons learned from a qualitative study
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(23): 8706.
Capek, S.M. 1993. The "environmental justice" frame: a conceptual discussion and an application Social
Problems 40(1): 5-24.
Carr, D.S., and K. Halvorsen. 2001. An evaluation of three democratic, community-based approaches to
citizen participation: surveys, conversations with community groups, and community dinners
Society & Natural Resources 14(2): 107-26.
Charnley, S., and B. Engelbert. 2005. Evaluating public participation in environmental decision-making:
EPA's Superfund community involvement program Journal of Environmental Management
77(3): 165-82.
Checker, M. 2007. "But I know it's true": environmental risk assessment, justice, and anthropology
Human Organization 66(2): 112-24.
Chess, C., and K. Purcell. 1999. Public participation and the environment: do we know what works?
Environmental Science & Technology 33(16): 2685-92.
Christopher, S., et al. 2008. Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research
partnership American Journal of Public Health 98(8): 1398-406.
Clapp, J.T., et al. 2016. Realities of environmental toxicity and their ramifications for community
engagement Social Science & Medicine 170: 143-51.
Cooper, C.M., and C.B. Wardropper. 2021. Environmental, public health, and economic development
perspectives at a Superfund site: a Q methodology approach Journal of Environmental
Management 279: 111571.
Couch, S.R., and C.J. Coles. 2011. Community stress, psychosocial hazards, and EPA decision-making
in communities impacted by chronic technological disasters American Journal of Public Health
101(Suppl 1): S140-8.
Cox, J.G., et al. 2019. Working with institutional stakeholders: propositions for alternative approaches to
community engagement International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
16(20): 4010.
30
-------
Cruz, S.M. 2019. Themes across new directions in community engagement International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 3724.
Cundy, A.B., et al. 2013. Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for
"gentle" remediation approaches: the European context Journal of Environmental Management
129: 283-91.
Daley, D.M. 2007. Citizen groups and scientific decisionmaking: does public participation influence
environmental outcomes? Journal ofPolicy Analysis and Management 26(2): 349-68.
Daley, D.M., and D.F. Layton. 2004. Policy implementation and the environmental protection agency:
what factors influence remediation at Superfund sites? Policy Studies Journal 32(3): 375-92.
Danielson, S., et al. 2008. Building and breaking a bridge of trust in a Superfund site remediation
International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 8(1-2): 45-60.
Davenport, M. A., et al. 2007. Building trust in natural resource management within local communities: a
case study of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie Environmental Management 39(3): 353-68.
Dearing, J.W. 2019. Scaling up solutions to toxic contamination in communities International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(17): 3034.
Eisenhauer, E., 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.
Ellerbusch, F., et al. 2006. Community engagement as a component of revitalization: lessons learned
from the Technical Outreach Services to Communities programme Local Environment 11(5):
515-35.
EPA. 1996a. Community Advisory Groups: Partners in Decisions at Hazardous Waste Sites- Case
Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 1996b. Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 1998a. CAGS. A Review of Community Advisory Groups in Region 5: Lessons Learned. Chigaco,
111.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 1998b. Lessons Learned About Community Involvement: EPA Superfund Response Staff Tell How
Public Involvement Has Helped Public Clean Up Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 2000. Engaging the American People: A Review of EPA Policy with Recommendations for Action.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-240-R0-00-005.
EPA. 2001a. Memorandum by Elaine Davie s—Early and Meaningful Community Involvement.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. OSWER 9230.099.
EPA. 2001b. Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA: Lessons Learned,
Barriers, & Innovative Approaches. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-100-R-00-040.
EPA. 2002. Community, Culture, and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding Sense of Place.
Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 842-B-001-003.
EPA. 2003a. Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy. Washington, D.C. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-233-F-03-001.
EPA. 2003b. How to Identify People to Involve. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA-233-F-03-006.
EPA. 2003c. Public Involvement Policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 2013. Getting in Step: Engaging Stakeholders in Your Watershed. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Nonpoint Source Control Branch.
31
-------
EPA. 2019a. 'Community Involvement Toolkit', U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed April
20, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-communitv-involvement-tools-and-
resources
EPA. 2019b. Partnership and Engagement Strategy, Superfund Task Force Recommendation 40.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 2019c. 'Public Participation Guide', US. Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed April 20,
2022. https://www.epa.gov/intemational-cooperation/piiblic-participation-giiide
EPA. 2019d. Superfund Task Force Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 540R19008.
EPA. 2020. Superfund Community Involvement Handbook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. OLEM 9230.0-51.
EPA. 2021 a. EJ Action Plan: Building Up Environmental Justice in EPA's Land Protection and Cleanup
Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 502/P-21/001.
EPA. 2021b. 'Superfund Community Involvement Tools and Resources', U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Accessed May 7, 2022. https://www.epa. gov/superfund/superfund-communitv-
involvement-tools-and-resources
EPA. 2022. 'Superfund Community Involvement', U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed
July 29, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-communitv-involvement
FEMA. 2019. Building Cultures of Preparedness: A Report for the Emergency Management Higher
Education Community. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Fiorino, D.J. 1989. Environmental risk and democratic process: a critical review Columbia Journal of
Environmental Law 14(2): 501-47.
Foley, R.W., et al. 2017. Ideal and reality of multi-stakeholder collaboration on sustainability problems:
a case study on a large-scale industrial contamination in Phoenix, Arizona Sustainability Science
12(1): 123-36.
Folk, E. 1991. Public participation in the Superfund cleanup process Ecology Law Quarterly 18(1): 173-
221.
Freudenburg, W.R. 1988. Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk
assessment Science 242(4875): 44-49.
Frickel, S. 2012. Missing New Orleans: tracking knowledge and ignorance through an urban
hazardscape. in S. Foote and E. Mazzolini (eds.), Histories of the Dustheap: Waste, Material
Cultures, Social Justice (MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.).
Gray, S., R. Shwom, and R. Jordan. 2012. Understanding factors that influence stakeholder trust of
natural resource science and institutions Environmental Management 49(3): 663-74.
Gute, D.M., and M. Taylor. 2006. Revitalizing neighbourhoods through sustainable brownfields
redevelopment: principles put into practice in Bridgeport, CT Local Environment 11(5): 537-58.
Hoover, E. 2017. The River is In Us: Fighting Toxins in a Mohawk Community (University of
Minnesota Press: Minneapolis).
Jawed, Z., and G. Krantzberg. 2019. A comparative analysis of practitioners' experience in sediment
remediation projects to highlight best practices Water Quality Research Journal of Canada
54(1): 10-33.
Jenkins, R.R., et al. 2012. U.S. Emergency Response and Removal: Superfund's overlooked cleanup
program Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6(2): 278-97.
Kaminstein, D.S. 1996. Persuasion in a toxic community: rhetorical aspects of public meetings Human
Organization 55(4): 458-64.
Kiessling, B., K. Maxwell, and J. A. Buckley. 2021. The sedimented social histories of environmental
cleanups: an ethnography of social and institutional dynamics Journal of Environmental
Management 278(2): 111530.
32
-------
Kim, E.J. 2017. Seeking a balance: a procedure-based evaluation of localized approaches for brownfield
management in the USA Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61(9): 1612-30.
Krantzberg, G., and M. Rich. 2018. Life after delisting: the Collingwood Harbour story Aquatic
Ecosystem Health & Management 21(4): 378-86.
Laurian, L. 2005. Public input in toxic site cleanup decisions: the strengths and limitations of
Community Advisory Boards Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science
32(3): 445-67.
Lehigh, G.R., E.C. Wells, and D. Diaz. 2020. Evidence-informed strategies for promoting equitability in
brownfields redevelopment Journal of Environmental Management 261: 110150.
Little, P.C. 2009. Negotiating community engagement and science in the federal environmental public
health sector Medical Anthropology Quarterly 23(2): 94-118.
Mabon, L., and M. Kawabe. 2018. Engagement on risk and uncertainty - lessons from coastal regions of
Fukushima Prefecture, Japan after the 2011 nuclear disaster Journal of Risk Research 21(11):
1297-312.
MacNamara, J. 2019. The missing half of communication and engagement, in K. Johnston and M.
Taylor (eds.), The Handbook of Communication Engagement (John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,
NJ).
Maxwell, K., and B. Kiessling. 2021. How to Get to Know Communities and Cultures: Methods for
Remediation, Removal, and Redevelopment Projects. Washington, D.C.: U.S.E.P. Agency.
EPA/600/R-21/291.
Maxwell, K., B. Kiessling, and J.A. Buckley. 2018. How clean is clean: a review of the social science of
environmental cleanups Environmental Research Letters 13(8): 083002.
McCaffrey, K. 2018. Environmental remediation and its discontents: the contested cleanup of Vieques,
Puerto Rico Journal of Political Ecology 25: 80-103.
McCloskey, D.J., et al. 2011. Principles of Community Engagement. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes
of Health.
Metcalf, E.C., 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): 315-24.
Miller, J.T. 2016. Is urban greening for everyone? Social inclusion and exclusion along the Gowanus
Canal Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 19(1): 285-94.
National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision
Making (National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.).
NEJAC. 2013. Model Guidelines for Public Participation: An Update to the 1996 NEJAC Model Plan
for Public Participation Washington, D.C.: National Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
NEJAC Waste and Facility Siting Committee. 1996. Environmental Justice, Urban Revitalization, and
Brownfields: the Search for Authentic Signs of Hope. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA 500-R-96-002.
NPS. 2011. Beyond Outreach Handbook: A Guide to Designing Effective Programs to Engage Diverse
Communities. Woodstock, VT: U.S. National Park Service, Conservation Study Institute,
University of Vermont.
Perko, T., et al. 2019. Societal constraints related to environmental remediation and decommissioning
programmes Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 196: 171-80.
Petrie, M. 2006. Environmental justice in the south: an analysis of the determinants and consequences of
community involvement in Superfund Sociological Spectrum 26(5): 471-89.
Prior, J., E. Partridge, and R. Plant. 2014. 'We get the most information from the sources we trust least':
residents' perceptions of risk communication on industrial contamination Australasian Journal of
Environmental Management 21 (4): 346-58.
Prior, J., and T. Rai. 2017. Engaging with residents' perceived risks and benefits about technologies as a
way of resolving remediation dilemmas Science of the Total Environment 601-602: 1649-69.
33
-------
Ramirez-Andreotta, M.D., et al. 2014. Environmental Research Translation: enhancing interactions with
communities at contaminated sites Science of the Total Environment 497-498: 651-64.
Reed, M.S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review
Biological Conservation 141(10): 2417-31.
Reed, M.S., et al. 2009. Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural
resource management Journal of Environmental Management 90(5): 1933-49.
Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation Science,
Technology, and Human Values 25(1): 3-29.
Schlosberg, D. 2007. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature (Oxford
University Press: New York, NY).
Smith, J.W., et al. 2013. Community/ agency trust and public involvement in resource planning Society
& Natural Resources 26(4): 452-71.
Stephan, M. 2005. Democracy in our backyards: A study of community involvement in administrative
decision making Environment & Behavior 37(5): 662-82.
Stern, M.J., and K.J. Coleman. 2015. The multidimensionality of trust: applications in collaborative
natural resource management Society & Natural Resources 28(2): 117-32.
Taylor, M., and M.L. Kent. 2014. Dialogic engagement: clarifying foundational concepts Journal of
Public Relations Research 26(5): 384-98.
The White House. 1994. Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Federal Register 59 FR 7629.
The White House. 2021a. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal Register 86 FR 7009.
The White House. 2021b. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.
Federal Register 86 FR 7619.
Till, J.E., and K.R. Meyer. 2001. Public involvement in science and decision making Health Physics
80(4): 370-78.
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(1): 203-72.
Walker, L.A., and J.F. East. 2014. The benefits of including engaged residents and professionals in low-
income neighborhood redevelopment planning processes Journal of Community Practice 22(3):
342-64.
Waste Programs Sub-workgroup for Community Engagement. 2017. Community Engagement Strategy:
Issues to Consider When Planning and Designing Community Engagement Approaches for
Tribal Integrated Waste Management Programs. Washington, D.C.: Multi-Agency Tribal
Infrastructure Task Force.
Wharton, A.S. 2009. The sociology of emotional labor Annual Review of Sociology 35(1): 147-65.
Williamson, D.H.Z. 2022. Using the community engagement framework to understand and assess EJ-
related research efforts Sustainability 14(5): 2809.
Zaragoza, L.J. 2019. The Environmental Protection Agency's use of community involvement to engage
communities at Superfund sites International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health 16(21): 4166.
34
-------
10 Appendices
10.1 Glossary
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.
Building relationships is the process of creating positive social and affective connections between
individuals and/or groups of people.
Building trust is the process of fostering confidence in a person's reliability, honesty, and/or ability,
and/or confidence in an organization's management processes and outcomes, within a given context.
Cleanup practitioners refer to EPA personnel who work in remediation, removal, and redevelopment
projects, such 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.
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).
Community engagement is "the process of working collaboratively with and through groups of people
affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to address issues affecting
the well-being of those people" (McCloskey et al., 2011).
Community involvement is "the process of engaging with communities affected by Superfund sites"
(EPA, 2020).
Community involvement plan is a site-specific strategy to enable meaningful community involvement
throughout the Superfund cleanup process (EPA, 2020).
Culture is "the entire pattern of belief and behavior that is learned and shared by people as members of
a social group" (Kiefer, 2007).
Culturally informed cleanups are where cleanup practitioners understand and acknowledge cultural
differences between themselves and other social actors and institutions and make deliberate attempts
to bridge those differences (see Maxwell and Kiessling, 2021).
Distrust is when a trustor believes that a trustee (a specific person, institution, or organization) cannot
be relied upon to tell the truth or follow through with promises. It might be based on history of
interactions with the trustee or information relayed to the trustor about the trustee.
Environmental cleanups encompass site assessment or characterization, remediation or removal
actions, and redevelopment or reuse of a variety of types of contaminated sites, including Superfund,
brownfields, UST, RCRA corrective action sites, and environmental emergencies (see Maxwell and
Kiessling, 2021).
35
-------
Environmental justice is 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" (EPA EJ website). In the social
science literature, it has several dimensions (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
Equity is "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 people 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" (Executive Order 13985).
Mistrust is a general feeling of suspicion or lack of confidence on the part of the trustor, not directly
connected to a specific trustee. In cleanups, it could be a lack of confidence in "the government" or
"science" writ large.
Public involvement is used by EPA to refer to the "full range of actions and processes that EPA uses to
engage the public in the Agency's work" (EPA, 2003c).
Social actor includes anyone who might be affected by or has the capacity to affect cleanups. The term
social actor is preferred in anthropology over stakeholder because there are power dynamics of who
gets to determine who has a stake in the outcome; also, stakes might differ (e.g., indigenous rights
holders have more than a 'stake' in remediation on tribal lands).
Stakeholder is used by EPA to refer to "representatives from organizations or interest groups who have
a strong interest in the Agency's work and policies" (EPA, 2003c).
Trust is "a psychological state in which one actor (the trustor) accepts some form of vulnerability based
upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another (the trustee), despite inherent
uncertainties" (Stern and Coleman, 2015: 118-19).
36
-------
10.2 EPA resources for engagement
SALT framework (2021)
Link: https://www.epa.gov/risk-communication/salt-firamework
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 (2020)
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.
Community Involvement Plans Tool
Link: https://semspub.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.
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. The Public Meetings Tool explains why public meetings
are important and how to plan and implement them. The Community Interview Tool is a helpful guide
for how to conduct interviews with community members.
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.
Technical Assistance Needs Assessments (TANAs)
Link: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-technical-assistance-communities
Description: A site-specific process that identifies whether a community requires additional support
from EPA to understand technical information and to enable meaningful community involvement in the
Superfund decision-making process.
37
-------
10.3 Engagement resources in the literature
Stakeholder assessment
1. See examples and steps in Reed, M.S., et al. 2009. Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder
analysis methods for natural resource management Journal of Environmental Management
90(5): 1933-49.
2. ATSDR Communication Toolkit, https://www.atsdr.cdc.eov/commimications-toolkit/c7.html.
includes a community concerns assessment tool, community data worksheet, stakeholder
interview guides, stakeholder/ partner outreach tool
3. Methods to understand values, concerns, worldviews, beliefs: Delphi technique, nominal group
technique, Q methodology, choice experiments
4. Methods to investigate relationships and power dynamics: Interest-influence metrices, actor-
linkage matrices, social network mapping
5. Methods to understand relationship with site: transect walks, problem ranking
Social impacts assessment of remediation, removals, or redevelopment
1. Social sustainability evaluation matrix, in Harclerode, M., et al. 2015. Integrating the social
dimension in remediation decision-making: state of the practice and way forward Remediation
26(1): 11-42.
2. Health impact assessments, see https://www.epa.eov/healthresearch/health-impact-assessments
Participatory/community science
1. EPA. 2022. Using Participatory Science at EPA: Vision and Principles. Washington, D.C.: EPA
Office of Research and Development.
Listening
1. The seven canons of listening. MacNamara, J. 2019. The missing half of communication and
engagement, in K. Johnston and M. Taylor (eds.), The Handbook of Communication Engagement
(John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ).
Decision-making/conflict resolution
1. Multi-criteria decision analysis, in Havranek, T.J. 2019. Multi-criteria decision analysis for
environmental remediation: Benefits, challenges, and recommended practices Remediation
Journal 29(2): 93-108.
2. Two stage decision framework for conflict resolution, in Han, Q.Y., et al. A two-stage decision
framework for resolving brownfield conflicts. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health 16(6): 1-19.
3. Dialogic engagement, see MIT Dialogue project toolboxes,
https://www.thedialoeueproiect.com/home.html
Public meetings
1. How to improve public meetings and hearings, see
https://archive.epa.eov/publicinvolvement/web/pdf/improvement.pdf
Public participation
1. NEJAC. 2013. Model Guidelines for Public Participation: An Update to the 1996 NEJAC Model
Plan for Public Participation. Washington, D.C.: National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council.
38
-------
Self-reflection, cross-cultural awareness
1. What/So What/Now what reflection model, see https://forumea.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/ST-Refl ection-Toolkit.pdf
2. Cultural learning plan in Maxwell, K., and B. Kiessling. 2021. How to Get to Know Communities
and Cultures: Methods for Remediation, Removal, and Redevelopment Projects. Washington,
D.C. : U.S Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/R-21/291.
3. Cultural competence in hazards and disasters training module, register for free at
https://conYerge4raining.colorado.edu/register/
4. Chess, C., and K. Purcell. 1999. Public participation and the environment: do we know what
works? Environmental Science & Technology 33(16): 2685-92.
Evaluating community engagement
1. Evaluating Public Involvement Activities, see
https://archive.epa.gov/piiblicinvolvement/web/pdf/evaluate.pdf
2. Program evaluation and evaluating community engagement, in McCloskey, D.J., et al. 2011.
Principles of Community Engagement. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, Ch. 7.
39
-------
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
------- |