research paper topics for environmental justice

Environmental Justice Research Paper Topics

This guide provides a comprehensive list of environmental justice research paper topics , meticulously organized into ten categories, each featuring ten unique and engaging subjects. It also offers expert advice on how to select a topic and how to structure and write an environmental justice research paper. Furthermore, it introduces iResearchNet’s professional writing services, which can assist students in creating custom research papers on any topic.

100 Environmental Justice Research Paper Topics

Environmental justice is a significant and dynamic field of study. It intersects with various disciplines, including law, policy, public health, urban planning, and climate science. The following comprehensive list of environmental justice research paper topics is divided into ten categories, each with ten topics. These topics are designed to inspire students to explore the diverse aspects of environmental justice and contribute to this important discourse.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Environmental Justice and Policy

• The role of policy in promoting environmental justice
• The impact of the Clean Air Act on marginalized communities
• Environmental justice in urban planning policies
• The role of the EPA in ensuring environmental justice
• Policy analysis of the National Environmental Policy Act
• The influence of local government on environmental justice outcomes
• The role of international policy in promoting environmental justice
• Environmental justice implications of waste management policies
• The impact of zoning laws on environmental justice
• Policy solutions for addressing environmental racism

Case Studies in Environmental Justice

• Flint water crisis: A case study in environmental injustice
• The impact of Hurricane Katrina on low-income communities
• Case study of indigenous rights and environmental justice
• Environmental justice issues in the Dakota Access Pipeline project
• Case study: Environmental justice in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
• The impact of industrial pollution: A case study of Cancer Alley, Louisiana
• Case study: The fight for environmental justice in the Amazon Rainforest
• The impact of mining activities on local communities: A case study
• Case study: Environmental justice and the Navajo Nation
• The Love Canal disaster: A case study in environmental injustice

Environmental Justice and Health

• The impact of environmental injustice on public health
• Correlation between air pollution and health disparities
• The impact of water pollution on marginalized communities
• Environmental racism and its impact on health outcomes
• The relationship between food deserts and environmental justice
• The health impacts of hazardous waste disposal in marginalized communities
• The correlation between environmental justice and mental health
• The impact of noise pollution on health in urban areas
• Health outcomes related to poor housing and environmental justice
• The role of occupational health in environmental justice

Environmental Justice and Climate Change

• The impact of climate change on marginalized communities
• Climate justice: Ensuring fair adaptation strategies
• The role of climate change in exacerbating environmental injustices
• The impact of sea-level rise on low-income coastal communities
• Climate change, environmental justice, and the Paris Agreement
• The role of climate justice in international climate negotiations
• The impact of extreme weather events on marginalized communities
• Climate refugees: An emerging environmental justice issue
• The intersection of climate justice and renewable energy policies
• The role of climate change in urban heat islands and environmental justice

Environmental Justice and Activism

• The role of activism in promoting environmental justice
• The environmental justice movement in the 1980s
• The impact of social media on environmental justice activism
• The role of youth activism in the environmental justice movement
• The influence of the Black Lives Matter movement on environmental justice
• The role of indigenous activism in promoting environmental justice
• Activism strategies for addressing environmental racism
• The impact of community organizing on local environmental justice outcomes
• The role of art and culture in environmental justice activism
• Activism and the fight for clean water in Flint, Michigan

Environmental Justice and Education

• The role of education in promoting environmental justice
• Environmental justice in the school curriculum
• The impact of environmental education on community awareness and action
• The role of higher education institutions in promoting environmental justice
• Environmental justice and science education
• The role of environmental education in empowering marginalized communities
• Environmental justice education programs
• The impact of environmental education on policy and legislation
• Environmental justice in environmental studies programs
• The role of experiential learning in environmental justice education

Environmental Justice and Indigenous Rights

• The impact of environmental injustice on indigenous communities
• Indigenous rights and environmental justice in the Amazon
• The role of indigenous knowledge in environmental justice
• The impact of land rights on environmental justice in indigenous communities
• The Dakota Access Pipeline and indigenous rights
• Indigenous rights and the fight against deforestation
• The impact of mining on indigenous communities and lands
• Indigenous rights in international environmental law
• The role of indigenous communities in biodiversity conservation and environmental justice

Environmental Justice and Urban Planning

• The role of urban planning in promoting or hindering environmental justice
• The impact of gentrification on environmental justice
• Urban green spaces and environmental justice
• The role of transportation planning in environmental justice
• Environmental justice in urban redevelopment projects
• The impact of housing policy on environmental justice
• Urban agriculture and environmental justice
• The role of community participation in urban planning for environmental justice
• Urban heat islands and environmental justice
• The impact of urban sprawl on environmental justice

Environmental Justice and Corporate Responsibility

• The role of corporations in promoting or hindering environmental justice
• Corporate pollution and environmental justice
• The impact of corporate social responsibility initiatives on environmental justice
• The role of the fossil fuel industry in environmental justice
• The impact of corporate lobbying on environmental justice policies
• Environmental justice and the tech industry
• The role of greenwashing in environmental justice
• Corporate accountability and environmental justice
• The impact of supply chains on environmental justice
• Environmental justice in the garment industry

Environmental Justice and International Perspectives

• Comparative analysis of environmental justice in different countries
• The role of international law in promoting environmental justice
• Environmental justice in the Global South
• The impact of globalization on environmental justice
• Environmental justice and the European Union
• The role of international organizations in promoting environmental justice
• Environmental justice in developing vs. developed countries
• The impact of international trade on environmental justice
• Environmental justice and the United Nations
• The role of international climate agreements in promoting environmental justice

In conclusion, these environmental justice research paper topics provide a broad overview of the various aspects of environmental justice. They highlight the intersectionality of environmental justice, touching on policy, health, climate change, activism, education, indigenous rights, urban planning, corporate responsibility, and international perspectives. Each topic offers a unique opportunity to delve into the complexities of environmental justice and contribute to this important field of study. Remember, the goal is not just to understand the issues but also to explore potential solutions and strategies for achieving environmental justice.

Environmental Justice Research Guide

In today’s world, environmental justice has become a crucial topic of concern for environmental scientists, policymakers, and communities around the globe. The concept of environmental justice centers on the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their race, socioeconomic status, or geographical location, have equal access to a clean and healthy environment. As students studying environmental science, it is vital to delve into the realm of environmental justice and explore its multifaceted dimensions. One powerful way to do so is through research papers that shed light on various aspects of environmental justice and propose solutions to the challenges faced.

This page aims to provide a comprehensive resource for students in the field of environmental science who are interested in writing research papers on environmental justice. Whether you are exploring this topic for the first time or seeking to deepen your understanding of specific issues, this page will guide you through the process of choosing compelling environmental justice research paper topics, offering expert advice on effective research methodologies, and providing insights on how to structure and write an impactful environmental justice research paper.

The field of environmental justice encompasses a broad range of topics, including but not limited to pollution disparities, environmental racism, indigenous rights, climate justice, and sustainable development. By delving into these areas, you can contribute to the growing body of knowledge surrounding environmental justice and play a role in advocating for a more equitable and sustainable world.

As environmental science students, you possess a unique opportunity to make a difference through your research. By studying environmental justice and shedding light on its complexities, you can contribute to the development of evidence-based policies, raise awareness among communities, and drive positive change. This page will serve as your guide, equipping you with the necessary tools, knowledge, and inspiration to embark on a meaningful research journey focused on environmental justice.

Throughout this page, you will find valuable resources, expert advice, and practical tips to assist you in selecting an impactful research paper topic, conducting rigorous research, and effectively communicating your findings. Additionally, we will introduce you to the writing services offered by iResearchNet, which provide expert assistance and support in crafting custom environmental justice research papers tailored to your unique requirements.

Choosing an Environmental Justice Research Topic

Choosing the right environmental justice research paper topic is a critical step in your journey to explore and address the complexities of environmental justice issues. To help you in this process, we have compiled expert advice and practical tips to guide your selection. By following these recommendations, you can ensure that your research paper tackles a relevant and impactful aspect of environmental justice. Consider the following tips:

• Identify your area of interest : Start by reflecting on your personal interests within the field of environmental justice. Consider environmental justice research paper topics that resonate with you, whether they relate to climate change, pollution, indigenous rights, urban planning, or other related areas. Engaging with a topic you are passionate about will enhance your motivation and dedication to the research process.
• Stay informed : Keep yourself updated on current environmental justice issues through reputable sources such as academic journals, policy reports, and news articles. This will help you identify emerging environmental justice research paper topics and gaps in the existing literature, allowing you to contribute new insights and perspectives.
• Narrow down your focus : Environmental justice is a broad field, so it is important to narrow down your focus to a specific aspect or dimension. This could be based on geographic location, affected communities, policy frameworks, or specific environmental challenges. A focused research question will enable you to delve deeper into the topic and provide a more comprehensive analysis.
• Conduct preliminary research : Before finalizing your research topic, conduct preliminary research to gain a better understanding of the existing literature and identify any gaps or areas that require further investigation. This will inform your research question and help you refine your topic.
• Engage with diverse perspectives : Environmental justice encompasses various social, economic, and political dimensions. Consider incorporating diverse perspectives into your research by examining different stakeholder viewpoints, marginalized communities, or international perspectives. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding of environmental justice issues.
• Consider interdisciplinary approaches : Environmental justice is inherently interdisciplinary, as it intersects with fields such as sociology, political science, economics, and law. Explore opportunities to integrate insights from different disciplines into your research to offer a holistic perspective on the topic.
• Collaborate with experts : Engage with professors, mentors, or professionals who specialize in environmental justice. Seek their guidance in refining your research topic, accessing relevant resources, and connecting with experts in the field. Collaborative discussions can provide valuable insights and help shape your research direction.
• Assess feasibility : Evaluate the feasibility of your research topic in terms of data availability, research methods, and time constraints. Ensure that you have access to relevant data sources, methodologies to analyze the data, and sufficient time to conduct your research effectively.
• Consider real-world implications : Environmental justice research should have practical implications and contribute to positive change. Assess how your research can inform policy development, influence community actions, or contribute to environmental justice movements. Aim for research that goes beyond academic exploration and has tangible impacts.
• Seek feedback : Share your research topic and ideas with peers, professors, or experts in the field. Seek their feedback and suggestions to refine your topic and ensure its relevance and significance. Incorporating multiple perspectives will strengthen the quality and impact of your research.

By considering these expert tips, you will be equipped with the necessary guidance to select a compelling and meaningful environmental justice research paper topic. Remember, the topic you choose will shape the direction and impact of your research, so invest time and thought into this crucial step. Embrace the opportunity to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on environmental justice and strive to make a positive difference in the lives of affected communities.

How to Write an Environmental Justice Research Paper

Writing an environmental justice research paper requires careful planning, organization, and a deep understanding of the subject matter. To help you navigate this process and produce a high-quality research paper, we have compiled a list of ten practical tips. By following these guidelines, you can effectively convey your ideas, analyze complex issues, and contribute to the field of environmental justice. Consider the following tips:

• Define your research question : Start by clearly defining your research question or objective. This will provide a focused direction for your paper and guide your research efforts. Ensure that your research question is specific, concise, and relevant to the field of environmental justice.
• Conduct a literature review : Before diving into your research, conduct a comprehensive literature review to familiarize yourself with the existing knowledge and research gaps in the area of environmental justice. This will help you situate your work within the broader context and identify key themes, theories, and methodologies that have been employed in previous studies.
• Gather and analyze data : Environmental justice research often involves collecting and analyzing various types of data, including quantitative data, qualitative data, and case studies. Depending on your research question, determine the most appropriate data collection methods and analytical tools to support your analysis.
• Consider ethical considerations : Environmental justice research often involves working with marginalized communities or studying sensitive environmental justice research paper topics. Take into account ethical considerations, such as informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality, when conducting research. Ensure that your research adheres to ethical guidelines and safeguards the rights and well-being of the participants.
• Adopt an interdisciplinary approach : Environmental justice issues are complex and multifaceted, requiring an interdisciplinary approach. Draw insights from various disciplines such as environmental science, sociology, law, policy studies, and economics. Integrate different perspectives to gain a holistic understanding of the issues at hand.
• Use appropriate research methodologies : Select research methodologies that align with your research question and objectives. This could include qualitative methods such as interviews, focus groups, or case studies, or quantitative methods such as surveys or statistical analysis. Justify your choice of methodology and ensure its appropriateness for your research.
• Structure your paper effectively : Organize your research paper into logical sections, including an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, analysis, and conclusion. Ensure a clear and coherent flow of ideas throughout the paper, with each section contributing to the overall argument or research objective.
• Provide critical analysis : In an environmental justice research paper, it is essential to provide critical analysis of the data and literature. Evaluate the strengths and limitations of existing studies, identify gaps in knowledge, and propose new insights or alternative approaches to addressing environmental justice issues.
• Support your arguments with evidence : Use empirical evidence, data, and scholarly sources to support your arguments and claims. Cite relevant research studies, reports, and legal documents to strengthen the credibility of your analysis. Ensure proper citation and referencing using the appropriate style guide (e.g., APA, MLA).
• Consider policy implications: Environmental justice research often has policy implications. Discuss the potential policy recommendations or interventions that arise from your findings. Consider how your research can inform decision-making processes, advocate for social justice, or contribute to the development of more equitable environmental policies.

By following these tips, you can navigate the process of writing an environmental justice research paper with confidence. Remember to maintain a clear focus, critically analyze the literature and data, and contribute new insights to the field. With careful planning and rigorous research, your paper can make a valuable contribution to the understanding and advancement of environmental justice.

Custom Research Paper Writing Services

When it comes to writing an environmental justice research paper, we understand that students may face various challenges. The intricacies of the subject, the extensive research required, and the pressure to deliver a high-quality paper can be overwhelming. That’s why iResearchNet is here to support you. Our writing services provide a convenient and reliable solution for students seeking assistance with their environmental justice research papers. By ordering a custom paper from us, you can benefit from the expertise of our degree-holding writers and ensure a well-crafted and comprehensive research paper. Here are thirteen features of our writing services that make us the ideal choice for your environmental justice research paper:

• Expert degree-holding writers : We have a team of highly qualified writers who specialize in environmental science and related fields. They possess advanced degrees and have extensive experience in conducting research and writing academic papers.
• Custom written works : Every research paper we deliver is 100% original and tailored to your specific requirements. Our writers follow your instructions and conduct in-depth research to produce a unique and customized paper.
• In-depth research : Our writers are skilled in conducting thorough research on environmental justice topics. They have access to a wide range of scholarly resources and databases, ensuring that your paper is well-researched and based on credible sources.
• Custom formatting : We adhere to different formatting styles, including APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, and Harvard. Our writers are familiar with these formatting guidelines and ensure that your paper meets the specified style requirements.
• Top quality : We strive for excellence in every aspect of our writing services. Our writers are committed to delivering high-quality papers that meet academic standards and demonstrate critical thinking, analytical skills, and a deep understanding of environmental justice issues.
• Customized solutions : We understand that each research paper is unique, and we tailor our services to your specific needs. Whether you require assistance with topic selection, data analysis, or literature review, we can provide customized solutions to meet your requirements.
• Flexible pricing : We offer competitive and flexible pricing options to accommodate different budgets. We understand that students often have financial constraints, and we strive to provide affordable services without compromising on quality.
• Short deadlines : We are equipped to handle tight deadlines, with the ability to deliver research papers in as little as three hours. Our writers are skilled in working efficiently without compromising on the quality and depth of research.
• Timely delivery : We understand the importance of timely submission, and we prioritize delivering your paper on time. You can rely on us to meet your deadlines and ensure that you have sufficient time to review the paper before submission.
• 24/7 support : Our customer support team is available round the clock to assist you with any queries or concerns. Whether you have questions about the ordering process or need updates on your paper, our dedicated support team is ready to help.
• Absolute privacy : We prioritize the privacy and confidentiality of our clients. Rest assured that your personal information and the details of your order will be treated with the utmost confidentiality.
• Easy order tracking : Our user-friendly platform allows you to easily track the progress of your order. You can communicate directly with your assigned writer, provide additional instructions, and stay updated on the status of your paper.
• Money-back guarantee : We are confident in the quality of our services. In the rare event that you are not satisfied with the delivered paper, we offer a money-back guarantee, ensuring your satisfaction and peace of mind.

With our comprehensive writing services, you can trust iResearchNet to deliver a custom environmental justice research paper that meets your academic requirements and exceeds your expectations. Place your order today and let our expert writers provide you with the assistance you need to excel in your studies.

Take the Next Step Towards Academic Success

Are you ready to take your environmental justice research paper to the next level? Don’t let the challenges of the writing process hold you back. Place your trust in iResearchNet’s writing services and let us help you achieve your academic goals. With our expert writers, customized solutions, and commitment to top quality, we are the ideal choice for students seeking assistance with their environmental justice research papers.

Once you’ve placed your order, we will assign a dedicated writer who specializes in environmental science and environmental justice. You will have the opportunity to communicate directly with your writer, discussing your ideas, providing additional materials, and ensuring that your paper reflects your unique perspective.

Don’t let the complexities of writing an environmental justice research paper deter you from achieving success. Place your order today and let our writing services support you in your academic journey. With iResearchNet, you can trust that your research paper will be in the hands of professionals who are dedicated to your success.

Unlock your potential and elevate your research papers with iResearchNet’s custom writing services. Order now and experience the difference we can make in your academic pursuits.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Environ Health Perspect
• v.129(2); 2021 Feb

Participatory Research for Environmental Justice: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis

Leona f. davis.

1 Department of Environmental Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

Mónica D. Ramírez-Andreotta

2 Division of Community, Environment & Policy, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

Supplemental Material is available online ( https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6274 ).

The authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.

Note to readers with disabilities: EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact vog.hin.shein@enilnophe . Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.

Associated Data

Background:.

Environmental health risks are disproportionately colocated with communities in poverty and communities of color. In some cases, participatory research projects have effectively addressed structural causes of health risk in environmental justice (EJ) communities. However, many such projects fail to catalyze change at a structural level.

Objectives:

This review employs Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS) to theorize specific elements of participatory research for environmental health that effectively prompt structural change in EJ communities.

Academic database search was used to identify peer-reviewed literature describing participatory research with EJ communities to address environmental health. Synthetic constructs were developed iteratively related to study characteristics, design elements, and outcomes; and data were extracted for included records. Statistical analyses were performed to assess correlations between study design elements and structural change outcomes. Through critical, comparative, and contextual analyses of the “structural change” case study group and “non- structural change” group, informed by relevant theoretical literature, a synthesizing argument was generated.

From 505 total records identified, eligibility screening produced 232 case study articles, representing 154 case studies, and 55 theoretical articles for synthesis. Twenty-six case studies resulted in a structural change outcome. The synthesizing argument states that participatory research with EJ communities may be more likely to result in structural change when a ) community members hold formal leadership roles; b ) project design includes decision-makers and policy goals; and c ) long term partnerships are sustained through multiple funding mechanisms. The assumption of EJ community benefit through research participation is critically examined.

Discussion:

Recommended future directions include establishing structural change as a goal of participatory research, employing participatory assessment of community benefit, and increased hiring of faculty of color at research institutions. The power, privilege, and political influence that academic institutions are able to leverage in partnership with EJ communities may be as valuable as the research itself. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6274

Introduction

In the 21st century, the greatest threats to human health are intertwined with modern systems of production, distributions of power, capitalist value systems, and modern lifestyle ( Filippelli and Taylor 2018 ; Kishore et al. 2011 ). Pollution is now the leading global cause of premature death and disease ( Landrigan et al. 2018 ). In 2018, noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), such as asthma, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and cancers, contributed to more than 80% of illnesses and 71% of deaths worldwide ( WHO 2018 ). NCDs are distributed inequitably; decades of empirical data and lived experiences demonstrate how dominant political and economic structures disproportionately locate environmental pollution and other sources of health risk with communities in poverty and communities of color ( Braveman 2014 ; Bullard 2008 ; Burwell-Naney et al. 2019 ; Gee et al. 2019 ; Gee and Payne-Sturges 2004 ; Marmot and Allen 2014 ; NASEM 2017 ; Schulz et al. 2016 ).

These “environmental justice (EJ) communities” may possess nuanced knowledge of local sources of environmental health risk but lack regulatory enforcement or formal channels to pursue action ( Brown 2017 ; Corburn and Gottlieb 2005 ; Konisky 2009 ). Polluting industries typically possess greater power, in the form of funding and legal strategies, than the EJ communities they put at risk (e.g., Collins et al. 2016 ; Gunz and Whittaker 2016 ). Often having formal complaints ignored (e.g., Carruthers 2008 ; Scott 2016 ), EJ community members may become discouraged in raising environmental health concerns, even when they are personally affected.

Conventional health intervention and health promotion strategies have largely failed to mitigate the sources of environmental health risk for EJ communities because the strategies often address health at the individual behavior level rather than interacting with relevant social, cultural, and political contexts ( Masuda et al. 2010 ). In recent decades, however, a new generation of academic environmental health researchers have emerged with the commitment to conduct collaborative research in partnership with EJ communities (e.g., Averett 2017 ; Balazs and Morello-Frosch 2013 ; Brown 2013 ; Christopher et al. 2012 ; English et al. 2018 ; Farquhar and Wing 2011 ; Finn and Collman 2016 ; Matz et al. 2016 ; Ramirez-Andreotta et al. 2014a ; Sampson et al. 2020 ; Sampson and Roberson 2019 ). These researchers share an ecological approach to human health ( Foget and Lebel 2001 ; Wilson 2009 ) and social responsibility ethic ( Quigley 2011 ; Weed and McKeown 2003 ), though they may employ varied participatory research approaches, such as community-based participatory research (CBPR), participatory action research (PAR), citizen science (CS), or community-engaged research (CEnR). Although different participatory approaches stem from diverse roots ( Friere 1970 ; Lewin 1946 ), they share the active participation of affected community members to propose research questions, inform study methods, collect and/or interpret data, and communicate findings. Although ample evidence supports the efficacy of participatory research to improve research quality ( Balazs and Morello-Frosch 2013 ; Cargo and Mercer 2008 ; Farquhar and Wing 2011 ; O’Fallon and Dearry 2002 ) and improve community understanding of health risks and behaviors ( Loh et al. 2002 ; Sullivan et al. 2018 ; Thompson et al. 2018 ), a much smaller subset of examples demonstrates the ability to address and mitigate the structural causes of environmental health risk through informed and organized action (e.g., Cacari-Stone et al. 2014 ; Lichtveld et al. 2016a ; Minkler et al. 2008 , 2010 ; Petersen et al. 2006 ).

Nevertheless, persistent cultural disconnects, trust barriers, and real structural inequity may prevent academic researchers from establishing equitable research partnerships with EJ communities that result in structural outcomes ( Clapp et al. 2016 ; Wing 2005 ). A previous review of participatory health studies showed that those led by community-based groups were more likely to result in responsive action than those led by universities ( Cook 2008 ). Academic research partnerships have inadvertently caused harm to EJ communities ( Ottinger 2013 ; Schnarch 2004 ; Shrader-Frechette 2017 ) or created barriers to community-driven participatory research ( Saxton et al. 2015 ). Research grant timelines often mandate short-term outcomes without resources for follow-up, degrading community trust ( Flicker et al. 2008b ; Mah 2017 ; Stengers 2018 ). As an Alaskan Native saying goes, “Researchers are like mosquitoes; they suck your blood and leave” ( Cochran et al. 2008 ).

We posit that academic institutions can leverage their positions of power through collaboration with EJ communities in ways that work “upstream” ( Butterfield 2002 ) to structurally address the systems that perpetuate environmental injustice. To examine this hypothesis, we reviewed a diverse body of relevant literature and conducted a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS), aimed at theorizing specific elements of participatory research that prompt action for structural change. “Structural change” is defined here as affecting macro- or meso- level determinants of health ( Wilson 2009 ), such as zoning policy, economic policy, political power, built environment, public service provision, or environmental policy enforcement ( Asada et al. 2017 ; Cole and Farrell 2006 ; Frohlich and Abel 2014 ; Rütten and Gelius 2011 ). This research focus does not intend to dismiss the real value of educational outcomes in environmental health research, such as increasing risk awareness or environmental health literacy, or the importance of protective measures funded and managed by community-based organizations; however, this focus employs an environmental justice approach in placing the responsibility to mitigate pollution on the economic, social, and political structures that produce it.

This research is informed by foundational literature on participatory research for health ( Israel et al. 2012 ; O’Fallon and Dearry 2002 ; Wallerstein et al. 2017 ), as well as previously conducted reviews of participatory research for health equity ( Brush et al. 2019 ; Cargo and Mercer 2008 ; Commodore et al. 2017 ; Cook 2008 ; Flicker et al. 2008a ; Ortiz et al. 2020 ; Viswanathan et al. 2004 ), qualitative environmental health research ( Scammell 2010 ), CBPR case studies in cancer research ( Hicks et al. 2012 ; Simonds et al. 2013 ), and participatory research concepts in public health ( English et al. 2018 ). English et al. ( 2018 ) specifically recommend that “[S]uccessful case studies should be analyzed for common themes to develop a framework for researchers and communities who are especially interested in impacting health and environmental policies” (p. 347). The following synthesis directly responds to this call in its aim to illuminate study design elements that prompt structural change to benefit EJ communities.

Protocol Development

The body of literature related to participatory research with EJ communities is diverse and complex, represented by empirical work using qualitative and quantitative research, theoretical and commentary work, and diverse disciplines. The goal of this research, rather than to summarize participatory research for EJ, is to generate theory around what catalyzes structural change that benefits EJ communities. This goal requires understanding not only the methods and results of the study, but also the study context. For these reasons, the authors chose to employ critical interpretive synthesis (CIS), a review method developed in the health science field to synthesize a diverse body of evidence for the generation of theory with strong explanatory power ( Dixon-Woods et al. 2005 , 2006 ; Flemming 2010 ; Sutton et al. 2019 ). The authors’ protocol followed the established stages of CIS (see Entwistle et al. 2012 , Box 1), as described further below.

Search Strategy

CIS often employs bibliographic search while also allowing sources to emerge organically ( Dixon-Woods et al. 2006 ). In this study, bibliographic search was the primary method to identify relevant literature. Diverse methodological terminology in participatory research ( Table 1 ) importantly distinguishes specific methodological differences ( Eitzel et al. 2017 ; O’Fallon and Finn 2015 ) but may not be operationalized consistently in the literature ( O’Fallon and Finn 2015 ; Watkins et al. 2009 ). Furthermore, varying levels of community participation often exists even within specific methodologies, such as citizen science ( Haklay 2013 ; Shirk et al. 2012 ) or community-engaged research ( McCloskey et al. 2011 ). These realities added complexity in the creation of the search strategy. Working closely with a health sciences librarian trained in information sciences, the authors tested various search term combinations to achieve a high percentage of results relevant to the intersection of participatory research, EJ, and environmental health. The final search was conducted on 12 August 2020 in Scopus, a multidisciplinary database, using the following terms to locate peer-reviewed documents: TITLE-ABS-KEY[(“environmental health” OR “environmental justice” OR “environmental injustice” OR “environmental racism”) AND (“participatory research” OR “participatory action research” OR “community-engaged research” OR “community-driven research” OR “community-owned and managed research” OR “citizen science”)]. No date limitations were set. This search strategy allowed for catching a broad, though not exhaustive, range of literature applying various participatory approaches to address EJ issues and sought to maximize the range of possible cases where participatory research for EJ led to structural change. Consistent with CIS methodology, this strategy relies on principles of sampling and theoretical saturation to develop concepts and theory, rather than aiming for an exhaustive summary of all data ( Dixon-Woods et al. 2006 ). Additional relevant literature was identified through reference chaining, the authors’ prior knowledge, Internet searches, and suggestions from colleagues. In some cases, project or partnership websites were reviewed to gain further understanding of case studies described in the literature.

Key terms and definitions.

Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection

Consistent with CIS, conceptual relevance was privileged in study selection ( Dixon-Woods et al. 2006 ). Articles were included for review if they described case studies using participatory research methods to address environmental health with an EJ community (as defined in Table 1 ). Theoretical articles, defined as articles that emphasize theoretical frameworks or propose best practices, rather than report on a specific research study, were also included when they specifically addressed participatory research for EJ or environmental health. Articles were excluded from review if they did not meet the above criteria for inclusion, were not full text articles, or were not available in English or Spanish (the languages of the authors).

Based on established literature on participatory research for health ( Farquhar and Wing 2011 ; Israel et al. 2012 ; O’Fallon and Dearry 2002 ; Wallerstein et al. 2017 ), “participatory research” was defined in this review as community members being engaged in one or more of the following: formulating the research question, developing research methods or tools, or interpreting results. Within these parameters, case studies of varying methodologies and levels of community involvement were included. However, this definition served to exclude projects with limited community involvement, such as community outreach ( McCloskey et al. 2011 ), crowdsourcing ( English et al. 2018 ), ‘contributory’ citizen science ( Shirk et al. 2012 ), or ‘Level 1’ citizen science ( Haklay 2013 ). In case studies, this study selection process often mandated full review of the methods section to interpret the type and level of community participation. Articles were excluded if they did not involve EJ community members as defined above or did not provide sufficient detail about participatory methods to inform the research question.

Data Extraction and Analysis

Following the steps of CIS, reviewed studies were translated into each other to produce a summarized account of the content and then compared and contrasted in relation to study contexts to interpret “synthetic constructs,” which allowed contrasting aspects of a phenomenon to be unified and explained. From the assembly of synthetic constructs, the evidence and its underlying contexts were used to build “synthesizing arguments” that theorize the phenomenon ( Dixon-Woods et al. 2006 ). Additionally, literature was reviewed critically, in this case by questioning the assumptions, methods, and measures of success of participatory research ( Dixon-Woods et al. 2006 ; Flemming 2010 ).

After the most recent 100 records were independently reviewed by each author, the authors met to discuss emerging themes and create an initial set of synthetic constructs. A codebook was built around these constructs and was revised inductively throughout the review process as new elements emerged. This final codebook (Table S1) was then used by the first author and a trained research assistant to code all literature, with frequent discussion with the second author throughout the review process. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and by regular comparison of theoretical structures against primary source data. All data was organized in Microsoft Excel (Excel Table S1). When more than one article addressed different aspects of the same research study or partnership, these documents were combined for coding to avoid data duplication. When single articles described multiple case studies, reference chaining and Internet search was used to locate source material for case studies when available.

Mixed methods analysis informed study findings. All included case studies and theoretical articles were reviewed in accordance with established methods for qualitative research ( Creswell and Poth 2017 ; Scammell 2010 ; Tracy 2010 ), and unique contextual details, challenges, or novel ideas were recorded as notes. Synthetic construct codes were analyzed for frequency in all case studies and theoretical articles (Table S1; Excel Table S1). Case studies which resulted in structural change to benefit the EJ community were synthesized as a group (Excel Table S2) and compared to the “nonstructural change” case study group. Statistical correlation between study design elements and a structural change outcome was analyzed using the Phi test for correlation in SPSS software (SPSS 25; IBM). Results from these quantitative analyses added understanding to the network of synthetic constructs and relationships between them, and led to the development of a comprehensive theoretical framework, or synthesizing argument, to theorize the mechanisms for participatory research with EJ communities to result in structural change.

Literature Search Results Summary

Figure 1 illustrates the process of identifying and screening literature using a flow diagram modified from Moher et al. ( 2009 ). Of 505 total records identified, 232 case study articles representing 154 unique case studies, and 55 theoretical articles were included for data extraction. Publication dates of included literature spanned from 1992 to 2020 (Excel Table S1). However, 60% (172 out of 287) were published since 2014, suggesting a recent increase in the publication of participatory approaches in EJ and environmental health contexts.

Review flow diagram.

Literature was coded within the synthetic constructs developed: a ) study characteristics; b ) participatory study design elements; c ) study outcomes; and d ) challenges described (Table S1). The frequencies of study design elements observed in case studies without structural change outcomes and case studies with structural change outcomes, as well as correlation of study design elements to structural change, are outlined in Table 2 . Table 3 summarizes the most frequently observed best practices for participatory research in environmental health as expressed in theoretical articles, and Table 4 summarizes frequency of challenges expressed in case studies and theoretical articles.

Frequency and correlation to structural change of case study design elements.

Note: CBO, community-based organization: .

*Data translation for participants was considered “Community-centered data report-back” and coded in the category above: . Indicates moderate correlation ( p < 0.05 , ϕ > 0.2 ) between study design element and case study group resulting in structural change, compared to the group of case studies with no structural change outcome, as determined by the Phi test for correlation.

Most frequently observed best practices for participatory research with EJ communities recommended by theoretical articles.

Note: Data translation for participants was considered “Community-centered data report-back” and coded as such. EJ, environmental justice.

Frequency of challenges described.

This review illuminated the variety of methodological terms used in participatory research because at least 20 unique methodologies were represented in the literature reviewed. However, 35 studies were excluded from review because their described methods did not meet set criteria for participatory research (community involvement in research question, study design, or interpreting results), despite use of a participatory methodology term in the title, abstract, or keywords. In some cases there appeared to be conflation of participatory methods with methods that collect community input (e.g., Severtson et al. 2002 ), engage community members in activities (e.g., Hou et al. 2020 ), or take environmental samples from people’s homes (e.g., McCauley et al. 2001 ).

Funding sources most frequently acknowledged by case studies included for review ( n = 154 ) were the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) (29%) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (17%) (Excel Table S1). No correlations were observed between funding sources and structural change outcomes. Case studies aimed to address diverse environmental health risks, with industrial facilities being the most frequently cited concern (31%), followed by transportation-related pollution (19%) (Excel Table S1). Notable is that 40% of case studies described social determinants of health as a compounding risk to community members (Excel Table S1). In several projects, social determinants of health such as poverty ( Austin 2010 ) or social stigmatization ( Málovics et al. 2019 ) were cited as the primary health concern.

Because different participatory methodologies may dictate different goals, stated goals of reviewed projects varied widely, from assessing community health concerns, to improving risk communication, to fighting a facility siting decision. Consequently, a wide range of project outcomes were observed ( Figure 2 ). The most frequently described outcomes in case studies included for review ( n = 154 ) were participants gaining increased understanding or awareness of environmental health risks (73%) and identifying specific environmental health risks (69%). Twenty-six studies (17%) were coded as resulting in structural change (Excel Table S2).

Frequency of case study outcomes described. Project outcome categories are defined in Table S1. Literature review codebook.

Participatory Research Design for Structural Change

Table 5 summarizes four of the 26 identified case studies resulting in structural change, to illustrate the range of contexts, activities, and resulting actions represented. Determining evidence of structural change in case studies was sometimes difficult, because the source of environmental health risk may be a culmination of small point sources ( Lejano and Smith 2006 ), legacy pollution ( Eggers et al. 2015 ), or socially constructed ( Masuda et al. 2012 ). Additionally, multiple layers of regulatory and enforcement agencies may be involved. As an example, Dhillon 2017 described a community-driven citizen science and advocacy project to fight the siting of an industrial waste facility. Although the EJ group “lost” when the facility siting was ultimately approved, five of the six demands made by the group were met in the approval process, and all city council members who had supported the siting were defeated in the next election cycle. In a participatory research project with waste pickers in Brazil, Gutberlet and Uddin ( 2017 ) described a recycling cooperative to promote and enforce health safety measures emerging concurrently with the study. Though the formation of this group was separate from the activities of the project, it is possible, though difficult to determine, that the project influenced it. Minkler et al. ( 2010 ) summarized the ongoing enforcement difficulties experienced after policy wins in two EJ projects: “In both Old Town National City (OTNC) and West Oakland, CA, United States, for example, a policy win (OTNC’s amortization ordinance and West Oakland’s 2006 truck ordinance) proved difficult to enforce due to either zoning that precluded enforcement or inadequate staff for providing oversight. In New York City, the WE ACT partnership’s successful efforts to help close a bus depot in Northern Manhattan (which was home to seven of the City’s eight depots) similarly were described as involving a shell game, with the City soon opening another depot in a different part of this community” (p. 809). In case studies, evidence of structural change was assessed to the extent possible, recognizing the dynamic nature of ongoing power and policy shifts.

Summarized examples of case studies resulting in structural change.

Note: EIR, environmental impact report; EJ, environmental justice; ESA, environmental site assessment.

Of the 26 case studies resulting in structural change, 20 (73%) involved policy changes. In only one case study ( Castleden et al. 2017 ) was the polluting industry responsible for the source of health risk held accountable financially. In several case studies reviewed ( Grineski 2006 ; Spencer-Hwang et al. 2016 ), the EJ partnership received significant grant funds to instate protective measures (e.g., vegetative barriers, air filters in schools) against polluting facilities, likely because this strategy was more practical, with more immediate harm reduction, than attempting litigation. Although these outcomes undoubtedly result in community benefit, they were not categorized as “structural change” here, because the polluting entity and relevant policy makers were not held accountable. In a parallel example, Brenner et al. ( 2003 ) described researchers and partnering health centers successfully lowering pesticide exposure of pregnant women in East Harlem, New York, apartment buildings, in part by sealing cracks where pests could enter. This strategy was successful in reducing risk, but deferred responsibility for basic building maintenance from the landlord to health organizations.

The comparisons between case studies that did and did not result in structural change, synthetic constructs and their relationships, and data contextualized within primary source documents led to the creation of a synthesizing argument, described in detail below. This argument posits that participatory research with EJ communities may be more likely to result in structural change when a ) community members hold formal leadership roles; b ) project design includes decision-makers and policy goals; and c ) partnerships are designed to sustain multiple years through multiple funding mechanisms. In addition, the assumption of community benefit via participation is critically examined.

Community Members as Leaders

In the words of community scientist Wilma Subra, “Citizen science only works when the community needs information…when a community invites you in, and says, please help us understand what is going on - that community will probably be very open to citizen science as it applies to their situation ” ( Sullivan and Parady 2018 ). Notably, 100% of studies that described structural change outcomes ( n = 26 ) started with local knowledge informing the research question ( Table 2 ). Additionally, EJ community members held leadership roles in all studies resulting in structural change ( Table 2 ), though in diverse ways, including: a ) project management by a community-based organization or group (e.g., Heaney et al. 2007 , 2011 ); b ) community members hired as paid project staff (e.g., Cantu et al. 2016 ; Evans-Agnew et al. 2018 ; Jelks et al. 2018 ; Lewis et al. 2016 ; Lichtveld et al. 2016b ; Staudt et al. 2016 ; Teedon et al. 2015 ; Warren et al. 2014 ); c ) community advisory boards (e.g., Ablah et al. 2016 ; Acosta et al. 2015 ; Claudio et al. 2018 ; Farquhar et al. 2013 ; Haynes et al. 2011 ; Schwartz et al. 2015 ); or d ) cultural/community membership among the academic researchers ( Málovics et al. 2019 ). Strong statistical correlations were observed between structural change outcomes and the following key characteristics of partnerships and participatory approaches: a ) projects being community-directed (later referred to as community-directed research); and b ) formal participant leadership structures ( Table 2 ).

Both the critical importance of community-based organizations (CBO) partnerships ( Tables 2 and ​ and3) 3 ) and the challenges of establishing equity in CBO partnerships were frequent themes ( Table 4 ) (e.g., Garzón et al. 2013 ; Loh et al. 2002 ; Parker et al. 2010 ; Quach et al. 2015 ; Quigley et al. 2000 ; Robottom and Colquhoun 1992 ; Wilson et al. 2014 , 2017 ). Cultural differences, social inequities, and the assumption and subsequent resentment that research institutions have “billions and millions of dollars” ( Goldberg-Freeman et al. 2007 ) were cited as potential reasons for trust barriers between researchers and CBO staff ( Brush et al. 2019 ). Even when project funding is distributed fairly, structural inequities may loom in the background ( Ortiz et al. 2020 ; Wilson et al. 2014 ). As Quandt et al. ( 2001 , p. 437) reflected on a past partnership: “Although the grant that funded this collaboration paid the research expenses (including salary, travel, phones, supplies) for each partner, the differences in infrastructure were striking. The academic partners had secretaries and accountants who managed the paperwork. They had comfortable offices with reliable heating, cooling, and plumbing. They had computer-support personnel to keep their computers running and up-to-date. They had email and sophisticated telephone message systems. They had libraries. The community partners, in contrast, had offices in a rented storefront. The same people who worked on [the project] interviewing and developing interventions also wrote proposals to bring funding to the organization and pay salaries. They were responsible for paying the bills and writing the checks that kept their organization running. In addition, when there was work to do maintaining the equipment and facilities, staff members had to do it.”

In effort to address this organizational inequity, Wilson et al. ( 2017 ) recommended sharing indirect cost rate (IDC) agreements with CBO partners to support the added administrative burden. Interorganizational memorandums of understanding (MOUs) were also widely cited as an effective strategy for developing mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities upfront, avoiding later misunderstanding and mistrust (e.g., Meyer et al. 2018 ; Suarez-Balcazar et al. 2005 ; Williams et al. 2010 ). De Marco et al. ( 2014 ) reflected, “Community partner capacity building should be one of the primary aims and budgeted items in a community–academic research partnership,” suggesting the shared benefits of ample compensation for community partners in project budgets. Multiple resources offer further guidance and tools for maintaining authentic, equitable academic-community partnerships ( Brush et al. 2019 ; CCPH 2013 ; Loh 2016 ; Suarez-Balcazar et al. 2005 ; Wilson et al. 2014 ), with further resources currently in development by the U.S. Citizen Science Association’s Environmental Justice Practitioners Working Group ( Shirk 2020 ).

Cases studies that involved hiring community members at the academic institution as project staff reported both the invaluable benefits and challenges due to some unpredictable life stressors affecting the EJ community (e.g., Jordan et al. 2000 ; Lewis et al. 2016 ; Lichtveld et al. 2016b ; Wilson et al. 2017 ). Abara et al. ( 2014 ) reflected on their choice to recruit staff and volunteers from the partnering community as “instrumental in gaining acceptance, alleviating community concerns, enhancing community empowerment, and improving the likelihood of success of initial and long-term recovery efforts.” Downs et al. ( 2010 ), reflected after their project that hiring several committed community residents in paid positions would have offered “the best chance of weighing [the project’s] benefits and harms” and likely would have improved community engagement. Crowe et al. ( 2008 ) described concern that they may be “asking too much of community members,” who are already juggling multiple responsibilities, by asking them to take on larger project roles. Pandya ( 2012 ) supports this assumption that EJ community members’ competing demands on time and resources pose major barriers to participation in research and advocacy. Providing paid project roles, which could replace the need for other paid work, addresses this obvious barrier. As compensation of community members in research may raise ethics and equity questions, Srinivasan and Collman ( 2005 ) drew from three case studies that compensated community staff and participants through pay and/or incentives in their recommendation that community members be involved with decisions around their own compensation to further build trust both with academic partners and within the community group.

Community advisory boards (CABs), committees where community representatives and other project stakeholders inform project-related decisions, also emerged as an effective structure for community leadership (e.g., Claudio et al. 2018 ; Crowe et al. 2008 ; Haynes et al. 2011 ; Parker et al. 2003 ; Wilson et al. 2017 ). CABs have been criticized in some cases as being performative, allowing project directors to “check the box” of community engagement by granting community members an “advisory” role with limited influence on project decisions ( Community-Campus Partnerships for Health 2007 ; Newman et al. 2011 ). The presence of expertise, whether from a research institution, government agency, or polluting industry, can easily overpower community representatives and endanger authentic participatory process ( Mah 2017 ; Ottinger 2013 ; Scott 2016 ). With careful facilitation and authentic leadership, however, CABs may create a space where EJ community members practice collaborative governance with other stakeholders, including policy makers and industry representatives ( González n.d. ; Yuan et al. 2020 ). By performing as peer board members and colearning within the research project context, EJ community members, academic researchers, and policy makers have the opportunity to build relationships across cultural divides that influence long-term outcomes ( Cramer et al. 2018 ; Newman et al. 2011 ; Yuan et al. 2020 ).

Unlike contributory citizen science project participants, who are predominantly white and college educated ( Evans et al. 2005 ; Pandya 2012 ), nearly all participant communities in case studies reviewed here are low-income communities of color. However, representation from EJ communities is not itself necessarily indicative of justice, because participatory research is “grounded in the conscious recognition that historically, and particularly within ethnic minority communities, research has been done on (in contrast to with) communities of color by predominantly white researchers” ( Shiu‐Thornton 2003 ). An important aspect is that 44 case studies (29%) reviewed here describe at least one researcher (faculty, staff, or student) as sharing community membership or key identity traits with the participant community (e.g., deLemos et al. 2007 ; Schwartz et al. 2015 ). In these cases, the researcher may play a dual role, representing both the academic institution and the community identity ( Dwyer and Buckle 2009 ; Muhammad et al. 2015 ). Pushing back against the insider–outsider paradigm, recent research recognizes the complexity and fluidity of researcher identity in community contexts ( Merriam et al. 2001 ; Serrant-Green 2002 ).

Opening the Policy Window

In case studies resulting in structural change ( n = 26 ), 81% collected data from more than one source, 50% collected both quantitative and qualitative data (such as personal stories and air quality measurements), and 50% engaged in data translation for decision makers ( Table 2 ). This finding suggests the importance of data communication and translation to prompt structural action. Participatory research values multiple knowledges, including indigenous and nonwestern forms of knowledge, which are often absent from modern decision-making spaces ( Abma et al. 2017 ; Corburn and Gottlieb 2005 ; Duntley-Matos et al. 2017 ; Finn et al. 2017 ; Houston 2013 ; Moezzi et al. 2017 ; Ottinger 2017 ; Scott 2016 ). Translation of nonwestern forms of knowledge, or qualitative data, into forms perceived as more legitimate, like statistics, maps, and economic analyses, allows academics with the credentials of the research institution to present community knowledge so that it wields power ( Jelks et al. 2018 ; Krings et al. 2018 ; Ottinger and Sarantschin 2017 ; Senier et al. 2008 ). Additionally, EJ communities face “hermeneutic injustices” ( Ottinger 2017 ), where provided expert data are written in technical language that community members cannot feasibly make meaning from. Decoding relevant policy allows community members to enter policy discussions using their own words and experiences, effectively participate in public debate, and propose informed policy change ( Bäckstrand 2004 ; Burris et al. 2016 ; Dhillon 2017 ; Heaney et al. 2011 ; Tajik and Minkler 2006 ). To further leverage the power of scientific data for structural change, however, broader data translation or employing “data interoperability” ( Gobel et al. 2017 ) is often necessary to decode data to inform both public action and policy action by decision makers ( Corburn 2002 ; Petersen et al. 2006 ; Ramirez-Andreotta et al. 2014a ).

Comparing environmental monitoring data against regulatory standards has been used to effectively communicate risk and advocate for change ( Ottinger 2010 ; Sandhaus et al. 2018 ). However, established standards may not exist for many environmental contaminants, increasing the challenge of effectively translating data for action (e.g., Brody et al. 2007 , 2014 ; Emmett and Desai 2010 ; Ponder-Brookins et al. 2014 ; Quandt et al. 2004 ). Researchers with technical literacy, access to secondary data to contextualize information, and understanding of community literacies and narratives, are well positioned to “translate” official data for public audiences (e.g., Dhillon 2017 ; Minkler et al. 2010 ). Some case studies demonstrated disseminating translated data through media sources to promote public discussion and political pressure (e.g., Akom et al. 2016 ; Allen 2018 ; Cohen et al. 2016 ; Madrigal et al. 2014 , 2016 ; Tajik and Minkler 2006 ; Teixeira and Sing 2016 ). In these examples, public concern raised about an issue placed pressure on decision makers to ultimately influence action.

Moderate correlation was observed between structural outcomes and engaging decision makers in the research process ( Table 2 ). In examples, decision makers may have been involved as project partners (e.g., Jiao et al. 2015 ; Wier et al. 2009 ) or through participation in data-sharing events to increase their understanding and trust of the data (e.g., Brickle and Evans-Agnew 2017 ). Grineski ( 2006 ) describes a study culminating in a one-day conference for local residents and stakeholders, including industry officials and policy makers, where residents hosted a “toxic tour” of environmental health stressors in the neighborhood and publicly shared stories about health issues in their household in tandem with researchers’ presentation of study results.

Of the 19 case studies that successfully achieved policy wins ( Table 2 ), policy-related activities and goals were included in project planning. Some case studies began by assessing policy feasibility in tandem with environmental health risks ( Keune et al. 2010 ), whereas others began with specific policy objectives ( Minkler et al. 2010 ; Parker et al. 2010 ; Stokes et al. 2010 ; Tajik and Minkler 2006 ; Wier et al. 2009 ). Evidenced in the both the case studies and theoretical literature ( Table 4 ), policy change through participatory research demands extensive time, energy, and long-term commitment to maintaining policy enforcement ( Cacari-Stone et al. 2014 ; Corburn 2007 ; Miller et al. 2013 ; Minkler et al. 2006 ; Petersen et al. 2007 ). Coombe et al. ( 2017 ) described experience from the Detroit Urban Research Center partnership in informing the recommendation that EJ projects focus on the more attainable “little p” policy, such as administrative rules, local enforcement, and city budgets, rather than “big P” policy, such as state and federal legislation. Of case studies reviewed here that resulted in policy change, the majority affected policy at the city, county, or school district level.

In the examples above, catalyzing policy change is a nonlinear process, because external factors are constantly shifting. Like social movements ( Brown et al. 2010 ; Engler and Engler 2016 ), EJ partnerships succeed by working on various fronts simultaneously, such as building personal relationships with key stakeholders, educating the public through media campaigns, and producing strategic public demonstrations, to create the environment where policy change and power shifts are possible ( Cacari-Stone et al. 2014 ; Minkler et al. 2010 ). Felix ( 2007 ) discussed how the convergence of multiple “policy streams” ( Kingdon 1984 ), such as leadership change or high visibility events can create a “policy window” for environmental health action. To prepare for policy window opportunities, researchers and partners may conduct power mapping and policy analysis and remaining observant and reflexive as policy streams shift ( Minkler et al. 2006 ; Petersen et al. 2006 ; Stokes et al. 2010 ). For example, Garcia et al. ( 2013 ) described a high-profile lawsuit and media piece that raised public concern about local air quality and quickly garnered support for local policy. Researchers were able to mobilize quickly due to previously established partnerships with a community organization and a mayor, who were committed to air quality issues, to influence public discussion. Four years later, when a new mayor was elected with an even stronger commitment to addressing local air pollution, their policy goal was able to shift from “no net increase” to the more ambitious “decrease pollution 45% in the next 5 years,” which ultimately passed.

Long-Term Commitment

Moderate correlation was observed between structural outcomes and project partnerships lasting more than 4 y ( Table 2 ). In 42% (64 out of 154) of case studies reviewed, however, time required for true participatory processes was described as a challenge, indicating the time investment may have exceeded what was initially expected ( Table 4 ). Some described iterative changes in project timelines to honor the needs of community partners or participants, which lengthened the planned project timelines (e.g., Brown et al. 2012 ; Cashman et al. 2008 ; De Souza et al. 2013 ; Downs et al. 2010 ; Johnson et al. 2014 ; Johnson-Shelton et al. 2015 ; Spencer-Hwang et al. 2016 ). Drawing from experience, researchers recommended 6- to 12-months minimum to establish collaborative group norms and culture, though building and maintaining trust and relationship may take even longer ( Cargo and Mercer 2008 ; Cashman et al. 2008 ; Loh 2016 ). Abara et al. ( 2014 ), for example, described a “community-based participatory service” model, where health professionals spent 3 y providing direct services to a rural community following a catastrophic chemical disaster, only shifting toward a research model when community members expressed interest. Madrigal et al. ( 2014 ), reflecting on a 15-y partnership with farmworker families, stated that “…the slowness of change, and the commitment of participatory research to action for community or social change, means that planning for continuity of involvement beyond the funded project period is critical.”

In case studies resulting in structural change ( n = 26 ), 16 represented research–action partnerships spanning more than 4 y, with some still ongoing ( Table 2 ), and acknowledge an average of two funding sources per study (Excel Table S2). Notable examples of community–academic partnerships spanning over a decade include the Detroit Community–Academic Urban Research Center ( Coombe et al. 2017 ; detroiturc.org ); Low Country Alliance for Model Communities with the University of Maryland ( Wilson et al. 2014 , lamcnc.org ); West End Revitalization Association and researchers at the University of North Carolina ( Heaney et al. 2007 , 2011 ; Wilson et al. 2007 ); the Akwesasne Mohawk Nation and University at Albany, State University of New York ( Hoover 2016 , 2017 ; Ravenscroft et al. 2015 ; Schell et al. 2005 ); and the University of Texas Medical Branch and EJ communities in Houston, Texas ( Pettibone et al. 2014 ; Sullivan and Lloyd 2006 ; Sullivan 2019 ; Sullivan et al. 2008 ). Despite the often-cited constraint of research grant funding cycles (e.g., Crowe et al. 2008 ), these partnerships manage to leverage various means of support through different partners applying for grants. Loh ( 2016 ) recommended that community–academic partnerships plan activities in multiyear cycles that connect to form partnerships over decades, adding, “Cultivating partnerships over this generational time scale is not unreasonable, given that many faculty careers are even longer, and many community-based organizations have similar longevity. Finally, this longer time frame is necessary to pursue significant community and structural change as well as institutional transformations in the university.”

Notably, some case studies evaluated success using indicators of equitable process ( Garzón et al. 2013 ; Van Olphen et al. 2009 ), which places emphasis on equity as the primary goal of the study, rather than products that benefit the academic institution. Using process benchmarks in grant reporting may help researchers and funders perceive time-intensive participatory activities as achievements of research objectives rather than as barriers to them ( Drew et al. 2012 ). As Cashman et al. ( 2008 ) stated, “There are no shortcuts to including both community and academic partners in data analysis, interpretation, or both. Although equitable involvement lengthens project time considerably, the insights gained from juxtaposing different viewpoints should be viewed as milestone accomplishments along the way to outcomes. Methodologies such as visioning workshops, practice sessions on coding, or mapping often lend themselves to brief intermediate action interventions while, simultaneously, overall research processes continue to be carried out. This duality of research and action can help ensure continued community, academic and funding partner engagement” (p. 1415).

Critique of “Participation as Benefit” in EJ Contexts

Ample research supports the benefit to participants in participatory research for environmental health, citing increased understanding of environmental health risks, as well as self-efficacy to address them ( Israel et al. 2012 ; Wallerstein et al. 2017 ). However, the benefits of understanding or self-efficacy may not outweigh EJ community members’ limited time and energy invested, nor provide a clear path to action ( Felner 2020 ). This review illuminated a lack of clarity among researchers as to defining success in partnerships with EJ communities. Goals such as “empowerment” and “community capacity” are subjective and may be perceived differently by community members and researchers ( Coombe et al. 2020 ; Payne-Sturges et al. 2015 ; Postma 2008 ). In some cases included here, a study successfully identified environmental health risks or community priorities but described only hypothetical next steps toward addressing them (e.g., Quach et al. 2015 ). Although research products such as health impact assessments or policy analyses can offer real value, EJ communities may struggle to use these products toward structural change without political power, funding, or lasting institutional partnerships ( Bourcier et al. 2015 ; Payne-Sturges et al. 2018 ; Scammell and Howard 2020 ).

This critique aligns with that of other scholars in calling for clear community benefit as a required goal of participatory research with EJ communities ( Barzyk et al. 2018 ; Cordner et al. 2012 ; Kraemer Diaz et al. 2013 ; Schindel et al. 2019 ) and for community member participation in project evaluation ( Brown et al. 2012 ; Haynes et al. 2016 ; Watkins et al. 2009 ).

Recommendations for Future Research

Leveraging power and privilege..

The strong correlation observed between community-directed research and structural change ( Table 2 ) mirrors previous research findings that community-directed research was more likely than research directed by an academic institution to result in responsive action ( Cook 2008 ). Multiple case studies illustrated the diversity of ways academic institutions can take a supportive, rather than leading, role with EJ community environmental health projects ( deLemos et al. 2007 ; Heaney et al. 2007 ; Hoover 2016 ; Watkins et al. 2009 ; Wilson et al. 2007 ). The spectrum of potential academic–community relationships raises the question of how academic institutions can best leverage their position to authentically benefit EJ communities.

Though this research focused on case studies that successfully resulted in structural change, it was equally important to examine case studies that described strong community participation, rigorous scientific data, and decision-maker engagement, yet failed to systemically address the source of risk (e.g., Ottinger 2013 ; Scott 2016 ; Staudt et al. 2016 ). For example, in the Aamjiwnaang First Nation community near Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, adjacent to dozens of petrochemical and polymer industrial facilities, community members have collected multiple forms of data for over a decade, from air quality measurements through bucket brigades to “spill calendars” that document the frequency of incidental releases. Despite years of formal complaints supported by empirical evidence, the Canadian Ministry of the Environment continues to approve permits for local polluting industries ( Scott 2016 ; Wiebe 2016 ). In a Hungarian city, researchers shifted the project focus toward meeting the basic needs of Romani participants and bridging social classes after realizing how extreme social exclusion of this highly stigmatized group left them critically vulnerable ( Málovics et al. 2019 ). In an adapted Photovoice project around health inequities with residents of three Canadian cities, a frequently reported theme indicated that participants, “perceived stigmatization that they felt was imposed by outsiders that limited the ability of their communities to achieve positive neighbourhood change” ( Masuda et al. 2012 ).

These examples suggest it may not always be a lack of data, commitment, or political strategy that prevents EJ communities from making structural change. Rather, it is a deep prejudice, pervasive in many modern decision-making spaces and power structures, that perpetuates the unspoken belief that certain communities are destined to be the dumping grounds of others ( Checker 2016 ; Taylor 2014 ). Although participatory research may extend the value and uses of science, a diverse toolbox is needed to address the political, economic, and social structures that create disproportionate environmental health burdens for communities of color and communities in poverty ( Brown 2017 ; Corburn 2002 ; Cordner et al. 2012 ). Along with technical and scientific knowledge, proximity to the power and prestige of a university may be an invaluable resource for academic allies to leverage on behalf of EJ communities.

Structural change as a measurable goal.

Bibliographic search results highlighted some misuse of terms “community-based participatory research” and “participatory research” in the literature when study methods reflected more limited community engagement. Although correct use of methodological terms is critical, less participatory methods, such as community outreach, may certainly be appropriate in certain contexts ( McCloskey et al. 2011 ). Additionally, where individual or household health behaviors are the primary source of environmental health risk, education and behavior change are appropriate end goals for participatory research (e.g., Alamo-Hernández et al. 2019 ; Evans-Agnew et al. 2018 ; Zagozewski et al. 2011 ). However, when risks are caused by external forces such as city planning or unenforced regulation, researchers may more appropriately place the burden of responsibility on the source of risk by including structural change as a research goal.

Results of this study suggest that prompting structural change requires attention and analysis of power dynamics to effectively work toward systemic power shifts. These results inform the recommendation that the following be included in participatory research with an EJ community: a ) evaluating root causes of identified environmental health risks; b ) analyzing power and policy structures surrounding the cause of risk; c ) identifying feasible structural change goals; and d ) community-driven evaluation to assess community benefit resulting from the project. These recommendations aim to maximize benefits and minimize harms for EJ communities, as well as enhance scientific rigor in participatory research ( Schindel et al. 2019 ). The further development and testing of existing community-based evaluation tools ( Brown et al. 2012 ; Haynes et al. 2016 ; Watkins et al. 2009 ) and tools to evaluate structural change outcomes ( Asada et al. 2017 ) advance this effort.

Supported by this research and other research ( Balazs and Morello-Frosch 2013 ; Cacari-Stone et al. 2014 ; Corburn 2007 ; Minkler et al. 2006 ; O’Fallon and Dearry 2002 ; Wallerstein et al. 2017 ), achieving structural change may require long-range planning, with process benchmarks related to policy research, strategic relationship building, and community members in leadership roles. Recent case studies involving these study design elements can serve as meaningful models for developing new research partnerships ( Coombe et al. 2020 ; Heaney et al. 2011 ; Minkler et al. 2008 ; Petersen et al. 2006 ; Wilson et al. 2014 ).

Considering positionality of academic researchers.

Challenges related to trust and equity between academic and community partners were often described ( Table 4 ), stemming from the same socioeconomic and cultural divides that perpetuate EJ. Given these pervasive challenges and the relevance of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic position of all actors in EJ contexts, positionality and identity traits of academic researchers are relevant data in EJ community partnerships ( Muhammad et al. 2015 ; Payne-Sturges et al. 2006 ). Although it is common to describe socioeconomic characteristics of a partnering community in research, it is not standard practice to describe positionality of academic researchers. Reporting on the researchers’ race, cultural background, language proficiency, and any personal ties to local context (e.g., Málovics et al. 2019 ) in research literature may lend validity and transparency to the research.

Although cultural competency training can support academics to work with EJ communities ( Quigley 2016 ), academic researchers may be more effective by also practicing “cultural humility” ( Greene-Moton and Minkler 2020 ) in recognizing that those with some degree of community membership are often better positioned for community engagement roles ( Minkler 2004 ; Stoeker 1999 ). As previously described, having EJ community members in leadership roles was observed as a factor related to prompting structural change. To further advance community leadership and move toward bridging the academic-community cultural divide, academic institutions may play a powerful role through hiring members of EJ communities and communities of color in faculty and research positions. Because faculty members may represent the “face” of the institution in EJ partnerships, they themselves serve as human “boundary objects” ( Akkerman and Bakker 2011 ; Singh 2011 ) when identity traits are shared with the community.

The critical role of the knowledge broker has been widely acknowledged in science and health communication ( Meyer 2010 ; Pennell et al. 2013 ; Ward et al. 2009 ). However, the role of the cultural broker ( Gentemann and Whitehead 1983 ; Szasz 2001 ) may be equally critical for researchers in EJ contexts to translate information between disconnected cultures and connect disempowered community members to the decision makers who dictate conditions of their lives. Multiple studies describe the value that faculty of color bring to the institution and provide recommendations for increasing research faculty of color ( Antonio 2002 ; Bernal and Villalpando 2002 ; Gasman et al. 2011 ). Acknowledging the additional career pressures on faculty of color ( Gutiérrez y Muhs et al. 2012 ; Matthew 2016 ) that may dissuade them from pursuing participatory research approaches, it is critical that research institutions formally value their potential role as “cultural knowledge brokers,” with understanding of both the community experience and the science, to enhance the rigor and relevance of participatory research.

Notably, not all case studies resulting in structural change here described a member of the research team sharing identity traits with the community, which suggests authentic allyship is possible even across racial or socioeconomic lines. In any relationship between an academic researcher and an EJ community, many scholars echo the importance of engaging with EJ communities personally and politically ( Banks et al. 2013 ; Brown 2013 ; Brown et al. 2012 ; Corburn 2017 ; Fine et al. 2000 ; Grineski 2006 ; Quigley et al. 2019 ; Weed and McKeown 2003 ). As Finley-Brook et al. ( 2018 ) describe, EJ collaborations “deepen and grow where people directly experience injustices and support each other in shared struggle.”

Limitations of this Review

The nonemergence of new themes toward the end of the coding process suggested data saturation to adequately address the research questions ( Saunders et al. 2018 ). However, consistent with CIS, this review did not aim to capture all relevant literature, and it is possible that data from omitted sources could have added new dimensions to the theory generated.

This review predominantly draws knowledge from peer-reviewed academic publications and is written for an academic audience, which inherently privileges academic voice and perspective. Notably, the literature included in-depth interviews with community researchers and EJ activists ( Sullivan and Parady 2018 ; Sullivan and Rosenberg 2018b , 2018a ), as well as ethnographic accounts of community-driven EJ efforts ( Dhillon 2017 ; Maida 2011 ). Especially given the correlation observed between community-driven projects and structural change outcomes, future research would benefit from emphasis on nonacademic perspectives in participatory research for EJ.

Participatory research offers a tool to produce community-informed environmental health data that can contribute to structural change that benefits EJ communities. Because the causes of environmental health risk in EJ communities are typically structural, participatory research partnerships are more likely to result in community benefit when structural change is included as a project goal. The synthesizing argument from this review contends that participatory research with EJ communities may be more likely to result in structural change when a ) community members hold formal leadership roles; b ) project design includes decision makers and policy goals; and c ) partnerships are designed to continue over the long term through multiple funding mechanisms. Academic institutions committed to environmental justice may further leverage their position of prestige and privilege through long-term allyship with EJ communities. Recommended future directions include establishing structural change as a goal of participatory research, further development and testing of community-centered evaluation tools to assess community benefit and structural change, and bridging the academic-community gap through hiring members of EJ communities and communities of color in faculty positions. Because environmental injustices persist worldwide, environmental health researchers have a unique opportunity to join and support EJ communities in shared struggle.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors wish to acknowledge S. Sandhaus for data extraction assistance and for review and comments on the manuscript, D. Kaufmann for review and comments on the manuscript, and S. Buxner for guidance on the statistical analysis. The authors additionally wish to acknowledge A. Saleh, Health Sciences Research Librarian, for her invaluable assistance in developing the bibliographic search strategy.

This research was funded in part by the National Science Foundation’s Division of Research and Learning – Advancing Informal STEM Learning Program, grant award 1612554 and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Superfund Research Program (P42ES04940).

• Abara W, Wilson S, Vena J, Sanders L, Bevington T, Culley JM, et al. 2014. Engaging a chemical disaster community: lessons from Graniteville . Int J Environ Res Public Health 11 ( 6 ):5684–5697, PMID: 24871259, 10.3390/ijerph110605684. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ablah E, Brown J, Carroll B, Bronleewe T. 2016. Community-based participatory research approach to identifying environmental concerns . J Environ Health 79 ( 5 ):14–19, PMID: 29120561. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abma TA, Cook T, Rämgård M, Kleba E, Harris J, Wallerstein N. 2017. Social impact of participatory health research: collaborative non-linear processes of knowledge mobilization . Educ Action Res 25 ( 4 ):489–505, PMID: 30135617, 10.1080/09650792.2017.1329092. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Acosta CP, Benavides JA, Sierra CH. 2015. Análisis cualitativo del deterioro de la calidad del agua y la infección por Helicobacter pylori en una comunidad de alto riesgo de cáncer de estómago (Cauca, Colombia) . Salud Colectiva 11 ( 4 ):575–590, PMID: 26676599, 10.18294/sc.2015.796. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akkerman SF, Bakker A. 2011. Boundary crossing and boundary objects . Rev Educ Res 81 ( 2 ):132–169, 10.3102/0034654311404435. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akom A, Shah A, Nakai A, Cruz T. 2016. Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) 2.0: how technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food revolution in East Oakland . Int J Qual Stud Educ 29 ( 10 ):1287–1307, PMID: 28835731, 10.1080/09518398.2016.1201609. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alamo-Hernández U, Espinosa-García AC, Rangel-Flores H, Farías P, Hernández-Bonilla D, Cortez-Lugo M, et al. 2019. Environmental health promotion of a contaminated site in Mexico . EcoHealth 16 ( 2 ):317–329, PMID: 30953243, 10.1007/s10393-019-01407-5. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen BL 2018. Strongly participatory science and knowledge justice in an environmentally contested region . Sci Technol Human Values 43 ( 6 ):947–971, PMID: 30369681, 10.1177/0162243918758380. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antonio AL 2002. Faculty of color reconsidered: reassessing contributions to scholarship . J Higher Educ 73 ( 5 ):582–602, 10.1353/jhe.2002.0043. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asada Y, Lieberman LD, Neubauer LC, Hanneke R, Fagen MC. 2017. Evaluating structural change approaches to health promotion: an exploratory scoping review of a decade of U.S. progress . Health Educ Behav 45 ( 2 ):153–166, PMID: 28810806, 10.1177/1090198117721611. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Austin D 2010. Confronting environmental challenges on the US–Mexico border: long-term community-based research and community service learning in a binational partnership . J Community Pract 18 ( 2–3 ):361–395, 10.1080/10705422.2010.490112. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Averett N 2017. New blood: the promise of environmental health citizen science projects . Environ Health Perspect 125 ( 12 ):129002, 10.1289/EHP3068. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bäckstrand K 2004. Scientisation vs. civic expertise in environmental governance: eco-feminist, eco-modern and post-modern responses . Env Polit 13 ( 4 ):695–714, 10.1080/0964401042000274322. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balazs CL, Morello-Frosch R. 2013. The three Rs: how community-based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance, and reach of science . Environ Justice 6 ( 1 ):9–16, 10.1089/env.2012.0017. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Banks S, Armstrong A, Carter K, Graham H, Hayward P, Henry A, et al. 2013. Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research . Contemp Soc Sci 8 ( 3 ):263–277, 10.1080/21582041.2013.769618. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barzyk TM, Huang H, Williams R, Kaufman A, Essoka J. 2018. Advice and frequently asked questions (FAQs) for citizen-science environmental health assessments . Int J Environ Res Public Health 15 ( 5 ):960, 10.3390/ijerph15050960. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. 2006. Participatory action research . J Epidemiol Community Health 60 ( 10 ):854–857, PMID: 16973531, 10.1136/jech.2004.028662. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernal DD, Villalpando O. 2002. An apartheid of knowledge in academia: the struggle over the “legitimate” knowledge of faculty of color . Equity Excell Educ 35 ( 2 ):169–180, 10.1080/713845282. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB, Wiggins A, Ballard HL, Miller-Rushing AJ, et al. 2014. Next steps for citizen science . Science 343 ( 6178 ):1436–1437, PMID: 24675940, 10.1126/science.1251554. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourcier E, Charbonneau D, Cahill C, Dannenberg AL. 2015. An evaluation of health impact assessments in the United States, 2011–2014 . Prev Chronic Dis 12 :E23, PMID: 25695261, 10.5888/pcd12.140376. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braveman P 2014. What are health disparities and health equity? We need to be clear . Public Health Rep 129 ( suppl 2 ):5–8, PMID: 24385658, 10.1177/00333549141291S203. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brenner BL, Markowitz S, Rivera M, Romero H, Weeks M, Sanchez E, et al. 2003. Integrated pest management in an urban community: a successful partnership for prevention . Environ Health Perspect 111 ( 13 ):1649–1653, PMID: 14527845, 10.1289/ehp.6069. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brickle MB, Evans-Agnew R. 2017. Photovoice and youth empowerment in environmental justice research: a pilot study examining woodsmoke pollution in a Pacific Northwest community . J Community Health Nurs 34 ( 2 ):89–101, PMID: 28467206, 10.1080/07370016.2017.1304148. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brody JG, Dunagan SC, Morello-Frosch R, Brown P, Patton S, Rudel RA. 2014. Reporting individual results for biomonitoring and environmental exposures: lessons learned from environmental communication case studies . Environ Health 13 :40, PMID: 24886515, 10.1186/1476-069X-13-40. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brody JG, Morello-Frosch R, Brown P, Rudel RA, Altman RG, Frye M, et al. 2007. Improving disclosure and consent . Am J Public Health 97 ( 9 ):1547–1554, PMID: 17666695, 10.2105/AJPH.2006.094813. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown P 2013. Integrating medical and environmental sociology with environmental health: crossing boundaries and building connections through advocacy . J Health Soc Behav 54 ( 2 ):145–164, PMID: 23598897, 10.1177/0022146513484473. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown P 2017. Contested Illnesses: Citizens, Science, and Health Social Movements . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown P, Adams C, Morello-Frosch R, Senier L, Simpson R. 2010. Health social movements: History, current work, and future directions . In: Handbook of Medical Sociology , Bird CE, Conrad P, Fremont AM, Timmermans S, eds. 6th ed., 380–394. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown P, Brody JG, Morello-Frosch R, Tovar J, Zota AR, Rudel RA. 2012. Measuring the success of community science: the Northern California household exposure study . Environ Health Perspect 120 ( 3 ):326–331, PMID: 22147336, 10.1289/ehp.1103734. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brush BL, Mentz G, Jensen M, Jacobs B, Saylor KM, Rowe Z, et al. 2019. S uccess in long-standing community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships: a scoping literature review . Health Educ Behav 47 ( 4 ):556–568, PMID: 31619072, 10.1177/1090198119882989. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bullard RD 2008. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, And Environmental Quality . 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bullard RD 2001. Environmental justice in the 21st century: race still matters . Phylon (1960-) 52( 3–4 ):151–171, 10.2307/3132626. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bullard RD, Mohai P, Saha R, Wright B. 2008. Toxic wastes and race at twenty: why race still matters after all of these years . Environ Law 38 :371–411. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burris S, Ashe M, Levin D, Penn M, Larkin M. 2016. A transdisciplinary approach to public health law: the emerging practice of legal epidemiology . Annu Rev Public Health 37 :135–148, PMID: 26667606, 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021841. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burwell-Naney K, Wilson SM, Whitlock ST, Puett R. 2019. Hybrid resiliency-stressor conceptual framework for informing decision support tools and addressing environmental injustice and health inequities . Int J Environ Res Public Health 16 ( 8 ):1466, PMID: 31027209, 10.3390/ijerph16081466. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butterfield PG 2002. Upstream reflections on environmental health: an abbreviated history and framework for action . ANS Adv Nurs Sci 25 ( 1 ):32–49, PMID: 12889576, 10.1097/00012272-200209000-00006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cacari-Stone L, Wallerstein N, Garcia AP, Minkler M. 2014. The promise of community-based participatory research for health equity: a conceptual model for bridging evidence with policy . Am J Public Health 104 ( 9 ):1615–1623, PMID: 25033119, 10.2105/AJPH.2014.301961. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cantu A, Graham MA, Millard AV, Flores I, Mugleston MK, Reyes IY, et al. 2016. Environmental justice and community-based research in Texas borderland colonias . Public Health Nurs 33 ( 1 ):65–72, PMID: 25787846, 10.1111/phn.12187. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cargo M, Mercer SL. 2008. The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice . Annu Rev Public Health 29 :325–350, PMID: 18173388, 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carruthers DV 2008. Where local meets global: environmental justice on the US-Mexico border . In: Environmental Justice in Latin America: Problems, Promise and Practice . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Scholarship Online, 136–160. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cashman SB, Adeky S, Allen AJ, Corburn J, Israel BA, Montaño J, et al. 2008. The power and the promise: working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes . Am J Public Health 98 ( 8 ):1407–1417, PMID: 18556617, 10.2105/AJPH.2007.113571. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castleden H, Bennett E, Lewis D, Martin D, Pictou Landing Native Women Group. 2017. Put it near the Indians: indigenous perspectives on pulp mill contaminants in their traditional territories (Pictou Landing First Nation, Canada) . Prog Community Health Partnersh 11 ( 1 ):25–33, PMID: 28603148, 10.1353/cpr.2017.0004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catalani C, Minkler M. 2009. Photovoice: a review of the literature in health and public health . Health Educ Behav 37 ( 3 ):424–451, PMID: 19797541, 10.1177/1090198109342084. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• CCPH (Community-Campus Partnerships for Health) Board of Directors. 2013. Position Statement on Authentic Partnerships . Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, https://www.ccphealth.org/principles-of-partnership/ . [ Google Scholar ]
• Checker M 2016. Environmental racism and community health . In: A Companion to the Anthropology of Environmental Health . Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 101–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christopher S, Burhansstipanov L, McCormick AKHG, Simonds VW. 2012. Using a CBPR approach to develop an interviewer training manual with members of the Apsáalooke Nation . In: Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research for Health . San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, 225–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clapp JT, Roberts JA, Dahlberg B, Berry LS, Jacobs LM, Emmett EA, et al. 2016. Realities of environmental toxicity and their ramifications for community engagement . Soc Sci Med 170 :143–151, PMID: 27783970, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.10.019. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark LP, Millet DB, Marshall JD. 2014. National patterns in environmental injustice and inequality: outdoor NO 2 air pollution in the United States . PLoS One 9 ( 4 ):e94431, PMID: 24736569, 10.1371/journal.pone.0094431. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Claudio L, Gilmore J, Roy M, Brenner B. 2018. Communicating environmental exposure results and health information in a community-based participatory research study . BMC Public Health 18 ( 1 ):784, PMID: 29940915, 10.1186/s12889-018-5721-1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cochran PAL, Marshall CA, Garcia-Downing C, Kendall E, Cook D, McCubbin L, et al. 2008. Indigenous ways of knowing: implications for participatory research and community . Am J Public Health 98 ( 1 ):22–27, PMID: 18048800, 10.2105/AJPH.2006.093641. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen AK, Lopez A, Malloy N, Morello-Frosch R. 2016. Surveying for environmental health justice: community organizing applications of community-based participatory research . Environ Justice 9 ( 5 ):129–136, 10.1089/env.2016.0008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen AK, Richards T, Allen BL, Ferrier Y, Lees J, Smith LH. 2018. Health issues in the industrial port zone of Marseille, France: the Fos EPSEAL community-based cross-sectional survey . J Public Health 26 ( 2 ):235–243, 10.1007/s10389-017-0857-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole LW, Farrell C. 2006. Structural racism, structural pollution and the need for a new paradigm . Wash U J Law & Policy 20 ( 1 ):265–282. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole LW, Foster SR. 2000. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement . New York, NY: New York University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins MB, Munoz I, JaJa J. 2016. Linking ‘toxic outliers’ to environmental justice communities . Environ Res Lett 11 ( 1 ):015004, 10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/015004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Commodore A, Wilson S, Muhammad O, Svendsen E, Pearce J. 2017. Community-based participatory research for the study of air pollution: a review of motivations, approaches, and outcomes . Environ Monit Assess 189 ( 8 ):1–30, 10.1007/s10661-017-6063-7. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. 2007. Achieving the Promise of Authentic Community-Higher Education Partnerships: Community Partners Speak Out! Raleigh, NC: Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook WK 2008. Integrating research and action: a systematic review of community-based participatory research to address health disparities in environmental and occupational health in the United States . J Epidemiol Community Health 62 ( 8 ):668–676, PMID: 18621950, 10.1136/jech.2007.067645. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coombe CM, Israel BA, Reyes AG, Clement J, Grant S, Lichtenstein R, et al. 2017. Strengthening community capacity in Detroit to influence policy change for health equity . Mich J Community Serv Learn 23 ( 2 ):, 10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.208. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coombe CM, Schulz AJ, Guluma L, Allen A II, Gray C, Brakefield-Caldwell W, et al. 2020. Enhancing capacity of community–academic partnerships to achieve health equity: results from the CBPR Partnership Academy . Health Promot Pract 21 ( 4 ):552–563, PMID: 30596283, 10.1177/1524839918818830. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbett JM, Keller CP. 2005. An analytical framework to examine empowerment associated with participatory geographic information systems (PGIS) . Cartographica 40 ( 4 ):91–102, 10.3138/J590-6354-P38V-4269. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corburn J 2002. Combining community-based research and local knowledge to confront asthma and subsistence-fishing hazards in Greenpoint/Williamsburg, Brooklyn, New York . Environ Health Perspect 110 ( suppl 2 ):241–248, PMID: 11929734, 10.1289/ehp.02110s2241. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corburn J 2007. Community knowledge in environmental health science: co-producing policy expertise . Environ Sci Policy 10 ( 2 ):150–161, 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.09.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corburn J 2017. Concepts for studying urban environmental justice . Curr Environ Health Rep 4 ( 1 ):61–67, PMID: 28101730, 10.1007/s40572-017-0123-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corburn J, Gottlieb R. 2005. Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cordner A, Ciplet D, Brown P, Morello-Frosch R. 2012. Reflexive research ethics for environmental health and justice: academics and movement-building . Soc Mov Stud 11 ( 2 ):161–176, PMID: 22690133, 10.1080/14742837.2012.664898. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cramer ME, Lazoritz S, Shaffer K, Palm D, Ford AL. 2018. Community advisory board members’ perspectives regarding opportunities and challenges of research collaboration . West J Nurs Res 40 ( 7 ):1032–1048, PMID: 28367677, 10.1177/0193945917697229. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell JW, Poth CN. 2017. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowe JL, Keifer MC, Salazar MK. 2008. Striving to provide opportunities for farm worker community participation in research . J Agric Saf Health 14 ( 2 ):205–219, PMID: 18524285, 10.13031/2013.24351. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummins C, Doyle J, Kindness L, Lefthand MJ, Bear Dont Walk UJ, Bends AL, et al. 2010. Community-based participatory research in Indian country: improving health through water quality research and awareness . Fam Community Health 33 ( 3 ):166–174, PMID: 20531097, 10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181e4bcd8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Marco M, Kearney W, Smith T, Jones C, Kearney-Powell A, Ammerman A. 2014. Growing partners: building a community–academic partnership to address health disparities in rural North Carolina . Prog Community Health Partnersh 8 ( 2 ):181–186, PMID: 25152099, 10.1353/cpr.2014.0021. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Souza R, Aguilar GC, de Castro AB. 2013. Creating meaningful partnerships between communities and environmental health researchers . Workplace Health Saf 61 ( 8 ):347–352, PMID: 23875568, 10.1177/216507991306100805. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• deLemos J, Rock T, Brugge D, Slagowski N, Manning T, Lewis J. 2007. Lessons from the Navajo: assistance with environmental data collection ensures cultural humility and data relevance . Prog Community Health Partnersh 1 ( 4 ):321–326, PMID: 19655034, 10.1353/cpr.2007.0039. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dhillon CM 2017. Using citizen science in environmental justice: participation and decision-making in a Southern California waste facility siting conflict . Local Environ 22 ( 12 ):1479–1496, 10.1080/13549839.2017.1360263. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. 2005. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods . J Health Serv Res Policy 10 ( 1 ):45–53, PMID: 15667704, 10.1177/135581960501000110. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, et al. 2006. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups . BMC Med Res Methodol 6 :35, PMID: 16872487, 10.1186/1471-2288-6-35. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Downs TJ, Ross L, Mucciarone D, Calvache M-C, Taylor O, Goble R. 2010. Participatory testing and reporting in an environmental-justice community of Worcester, Massachusetts: a pilot project . Environ Health 9 :34, PMID: 20604953, 10.1186/1476-069X-9-34. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drew CH, Pettibone KG, O’Fallon LR, Collman GW, Birnbaum LS. 2012. Measuring partnership activities: partnerships in environmental public health evaluation metrics manual . Environ Health Perspect 120 ( 7 ): a261–a262, 10.1289/ehp.1205512. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duntley-Matos R, Arteaga V, García A, Arellano R, Garza R, Ortega RM. 2017. “ We always say: and then came the water…” 1 Flint’s emergent Latinx capacity building journey during the government-induced lead crisis . J Community Pract 25 ( 3–4 ):365–390, 10.1080/10705422.2017.1384422. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer SC, Buckle JL. 2009. The space between: on being an insider-outsider in qualitative research . Int J Qual Methods 8 ( 1 ):54–63, 10.1177/160940690900800105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eggers MJ, Moore-Nall AL, Doyle JT, Lefthand MJ, Young SL, Bends AL, et al. 2015. Potential health risks from uranium in home well water: an investigation by the Apsaalooke (Crow) Tribal Research Group . Geosciences 5 ( 1 ):67–94, 10.3390/geosciences5010067. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisinger A, Senturia K. 2001. Doing community-driven research: a description of Seattle Partners for Healthy Communities . J Urban Health 78 ( 3 ):519–534, PMID: 11564854, 10.1093/jurban/78.3.519. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eitzel MV, Cappadonna JL, Santos-Lang C, Duerr RE, Virapongse A, West SE, et al. 2017. Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms . Citizen Sci Theory Pract 2 ( 1 ):1, 10.5334/cstp.96. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emmett EA, Desai C. 2010. Community first communication: reversing information disparities to achieve environmental justice . Environ Justice 3 ( 3 ):79–84, PMID: 21546988, 10.1089/env.2009.0037. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engler M, Engler P. 2016. This Is an Uprising: How Nonviolent Revolt Is Shaping the Twenty-First Century . New York, NY: Nation Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• English PB, Richardson MJ, Garzón-Galvis C. 2018. From crowdsourcing to extreme citizen science: participatory research for environmental health . Annu Rev Public Health 39 :335–350, PMID: 29608871, 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013702. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Entwistle V, Firnigl D, Ryan M, Francis J, Kinghorn P. 2012. Which experiences of health care delivery matter to service users and why? A critical interpretive synthesis and conceptual map . J Health Serv Res Policy 17 ( 2 ):70–78, PMID: 21967821, 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011029. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans C, Abrams E, Reitsma R, Roux K, Salmonsen L, Marra PP. 2005. The Neighborhood Nestwatch program: participant outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project . Conserv Biol 19 ( 3 ):589–594, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00s01.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans-Agnew RA, Postma J, Camacho AO, Hershberg RM, Trujilio E, Tinajera M. 2018. Development and pilot testing of a bilingual environmental health assessment tool to promote asthma-friendly childcares . Prog Community Health Partnersh 12 ( 1 ):35–44, PMID: 29606691, 10.1353/cpr.2018.0004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farquhar S, Gonzalez C de J, Hall J, Samples J, Ventura S, Sanchez V, et al. 2013. Integrating the wisdom and experience of indigenous farmworkers to improve farmworker safety and health . Prog Community Health Partnersh 7 ( 4 ):413–418, PMID: 24375182, 10.1353/cpr.2013.0055. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farquhar SA, Wing S. 2011. Methodological and ethical considerations in community-driven environmental justice research: two case studies from rural North Carolina . In: Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes . Minkler M, Wallerstein N, eds. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Felix HC 2007. The rise of the community-based participatory research initiative at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences: an historical analysis using the policy streams model . Prog Community Health Partnersh 1 ( 1 ):31–39, PMID: 20208272, 10.1353/cpr.2007.0000. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Felner JK 2020. “ You get a PhD and we get a few hundred bucks”: mutual benefits in participatory action research? Health Educ Behav 47 ( 4 ):549–555, PMID: 32111118, 10.1177/1090198120902763. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Filippelli GM, Taylor MP. 2018. Addressing pollution-related global environmental health burdens . Geohealth 2 ( 1 ):2–5, PMID: 32158996, 10.1002/2017GH000119. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine M, Weis L, Weseen S, Wong L. 2000. For whom? qualitative research, representations and social responsibilities . In: Handbook Of Qualitative Research . Denzin NK, Lincoln, YS, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Finley-Brook M, Travis LW, Judi A C-S, Mary KJ. 2018. Critical energy justice in US natural gas infrastructuring . Energy Res Soc Sci 41 :176–190, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finn S, Collman G. 2016. The pivotal role of the social sciences in environmental health sciences research . New Solut 26 ( 3 ):389–411, PMID: 27605565, 10.1177/1048291116666485. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finn S, Herne M, Castille D. 2017. The value of traditional ecological knowledge for the environmental health sciences and biomedical research . Environ Health Perspect 125 ( 8 ):085006–085010, 10.1289/EHP858. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flemming K 2010. Synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research: an example using critical interpretive synthesis . J Adv Nurs 66 ( 1 ):201–217, PMID: 20423445, 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05173.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flicker S, Savan B, Kolenda B, Mildenberger M. 2008a. A snapshot of community-based research in Canada: who? what? why? how? Health Educ Res 23 ( 1 ):106–114, PMID: 17322572, 10.1093/her/cym007. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flicker S, Savan B, McGrath M, Kolenda B, Mildenberger M. 2008b. ‘ If you could change one thing…’ what community-based researchers wish they could have done differently . Community Dev J 43 ( 2 ):239–253, 10.1093/cdj/bsm009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foget G, Lebel J. 2001. An ecosystem approach to human health . Int J Occup Environ Health 7 ( suppl 2 ):S3–S38, PMID: 11387989. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friere P 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed . New York, NY: Seabury. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frohlich KL, Abel T. 2014. Environmental justice and health practices: understanding how health inequities arise at the local level . Sociol Health Illn 36 ( 2 ):199–212, PMID: 24372359, 10.1111/1467-9566.12126. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia AP, Wallerstein N, Hricko A, Marquez JN, Logan A, Nasser EG, et al. 2013. THE (trade, health, environment) impact project: a community-based participatory research environmental justice case study . Environ Justice 6 ( 1 ):17–26, 10.1089/env.2012.0016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garzón C, Beveridge B, Gordon M, Martin C, Matalon E, Moore E. 2013. Power, privilege, and the process of community-based participatory research: critical reflections on forging an empowered partnership for environmental justice in West Oakland, California . Environ Justice 6 ( 2 ):71–78, 10.1089/env.2012.0039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gasman M, Kim J, Nguyen T-H. 2011. Effectively recruiting faculty of color at highly selective institutions: a school of education case study . J Divers High Educ 4 ( 4 ):212–222, 10.1037/a0025130. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gee GC, Hing A, Mohammed S, Tabor DC, Williams DR. 2019. Racism and the life course: taking time seriously . Am J Public Health 109 ( S1 ):S43–S47, PMID: 30699016, 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304766. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gee GC, Payne-Sturges DC. 2004. Environmental health disparities: a framework integrating psychosocial and environmental concepts . Environ Health Perspect 112 ( 17 ):1645–1653, PMID: 15579407, 10.1289/ehp.7074. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentemann KM, Whitehead TL. 1983. The cultural broker concept in bicultural education . J Negro Educ 52 ( 2 ):118–129, 10.2307/2295029. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gobel C, Martin VY, Ramirez-Andreotta M. 2017. International Citizen Science Stakeholder Analysis on Data Interoperability . Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center.
• Goldberg-Freeman C, Kass NE, Tracey P, Ross G, Bates-Hopkins B, Purnell L, et al. 2007. “ You’ve got to understand community”: community perceptions on “breaking the disconnect” between researchers and communities . Prog Community Health Partnersh 1 ( 3 ):231–240, PMID: 20208285, 10.1353/cpr.2007.0021. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• González R n.d. The Spectrum of Community Engagement to Ownership . https://movementstrategy.org/b/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Spectrum-2-1-1.pdf [accessed 17 January 2021].
• Greene-Moton E, Minkler M. 2020. Cultural competence or cultural humility? Moving beyond the debate . Health Promot Pract 21 ( 1 ):142–145, PMID: 31718301, 10.1177/1524839919884912. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grineski SE 2006. Local struggles for environmental justice: activating knowledge for change . J Poverty 10 ( 3 ):25–49, 10.1300/J134v10n03_02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunz S, Whittaker L. 2016. Rock, paper, protest: the fight for the boreal forest . J Legal Studies Educ 33 ( 2 ):317–360, 10.1111/jlse.12050. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gutberlet J, Uddin SMN. 2017. Household waste and health risks affecting waste pickers and the environment in low- and middle-income countries . Int J Occup Environ Health 23 ( 4 ):299–310, PMID: 29924702, 10.1080/10773525.2018.1484996. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gutiérrez y Muhs G, Niemann YF, González CG, Harris AP, eds. 2012. Presumed Incompetent the Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia . Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haklay M 2013. Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: overview and typology of participation . In: Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice . Sui D, Elwood S, Goodchild M, eds Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 105–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haynes EN, Beidler C, Wittberg R, Meloncon L, Parin M, Kopras EJ, et al. 2011. Developing a bidirectional academic–community partnership with an Appalachian-American community for environmental health research and risk communication . Environ Health Perspect 119 ( 10 ):1364–1372, PMID: 21680278, 10.1289/ehp.1003164. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haynes EN, Sarah E, Roxanne B, Alonzo S, Elissa Y, Pierce K, et al. 2016. Community engagement and data disclosure in environmental health research . Environ Health Perspect 124 ( 2 ):A24–A27, PMID: 26829152, 10.1289/ehp.1510411. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heaney CD, Wilson SM, Wilson OR. 2007. The West End Revitalization Association’s community-owned and -managed research model: development, implementation, and action . Prog Community Health Partnersh 1 ( 4 ):339–349, PMID: 20208213, 10.1353/cpr.2007.0037. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heaney CD, Wilson S, Wilson O, Cooper J, Bumpass N, Snipes M. 2011. Use of community-owned and -managed research to assess the vulnerability of water and sewer services in marginalized and underserved environmental justice communities . J Environ Health 74 ( 1 ):8–17, PMID: 21830685. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hicks S, Duran B, Wallerstein N, Avila M, Belone L, Lucero J, et al. 2012. Evaluating community-based participatory research to improve community-partnered science and community health . Prog Community Health Partnersh 6 ( 3 ):289–299, PMID: 22982842, 10.1353/cpr.2012.0049. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoover E 2016. “ We’re not going to be guinea pigs;” citizen science and environmental health in a Native American community . J Sci Commun 15 ( 1 ):A05, 10.22323/2.15010205. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoover E 2017. The River Is in Us: Fighting Toxics in a Mohawk Community . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hou X, Ma Y, Wu Y, Wang W. 2020. Implementing green education of urban families: an action research project in Beijing, China . Action Res 18 ( 1 ):19–47, 10.1177/1476750319889385. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Houston D 2013. Environmental justice storytelling: angels and isotopes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada . Antipode 45 ( 2 ):417–435, 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01006.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA. 2012. Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research for Health . 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jelks NO, Hawthorne TL, Dai D, Fuller CH, Stauber C. 2018. Mapping the hidden hazards: community-led spatial data collection of street-level environmental stressors in a degraded, urban watershed . Int J Environ Res Public Health 15 ( 4 ):825, PMID: 29690570, 10.3390/ijerph15040825. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiao Y, Bower JK, Im W, Basta N, Obrycki J, Al-Hamdan MZ, et al. 2015. Application of citizen science risk communication tools in a vulnerable urban community . Int J Environ Res Public Health 13 ( 1 ):11, PMID: 26703664, 10.3390/ijerph13010011. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson S, Cardona D, Gramling B, Hamilton C, Hoffmann R, Sabir J. 2014. Engaging the for-profit sector in community-based participatory research: lessons from the ground . Prog Community Health Partnersh 8 ( 4 ):523–530, PMID: 25727985, 10.1353/cpr.2014.0062. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson-Shelton D, Moreno-Black G, Evers C, Zwink N. 2015. A Community-based participatory research approach for preventing childhood obesity: the Communities and Schools Together Project . Prog Community Health Partnersh 9 ( 3 ):351–361, PMID: 26548786, 10.1353/cpr.2015.0056. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jordan C, Lee P, Shapiro E. 2000. Measuring developmental outcomes of lead exposure in an urban neighborhood: the challenges of community-based research . J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10 ( 6 Pt 2 ):732–742, PMID: 11138665, 10.1038/sj.jea.7500130. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keune H, Morrens B, Croes K, Colles A, Koppen G, Springael J, et al. 2010. Opening the research agenda for selection of hot spots for human biomonitoring research in Belgium: a participatory research project . Environ Health 9 :33, PMID: 20604935, 10.1186/1476-069X-9-33. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kingdon JW 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies . Boston, MA: Little, Brown. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kishore S, Siegel KR, Kelly B, Vedanthan R, Ali MK, Koplan J, et al. 2011. Preparing the university community to respond to 21st century global public health needs . Glob Heart 6 ( 4 ):183–190, PMID: 25691043, 10.1016/j.gheart.2011.07.002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Konisky DM 2009. Inequities in enforcement? Environmental justice and government performance . J Pol Anal Manage 28 ( 1 ):102–121, 10.1002/pam.20404. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kraemer Diaz AE, Spears Johnson CR, Arcury TA. 2013. Variation in the interpretation of scientific integrity in community-based participatory health research . Soc Sci Med 97 :134–142, PMID: 24161098, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.08.023. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krings A, Kornberg D, Lane E. 2018. Organizing under austerity: how residents’ concerns became the Flint water crisis . Crit Sociol 45 ( 4–5 ):583–597, 10.1177/0896920518757053. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landrigan PJ, Fuller R, Acosta NJR, Adeyi O, Arnold R, Basu N, et al. 2018. The Lancet Commission on pollution and health . Lancet 391 ( 10119 ):462–512, PMID: 29056410, 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32345-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lejano RP, Smith CS. 2006. Incompatible land uses and the topology of cumulative risk . Environ Manage 37 ( 2 ):230–246, PMID: 16362485, 10.1007/s00267-005-0031-7. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewin K 1946. Action research and minority problems . J Soc Issues 2 ( 4 ):34–46, 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis D, Castleden H, Francis S, Strickland K, Denny C. 2016. Increasing response rates on face-to-face surveys with indigenous communities in Canada: lessons from Pictou Landing . Prog Community Health Partnersh 10 ( 2 ):197–205, PMID: 27346765, 10.1353/cpr.2016.0021. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichtveld M, Goldstein B, Grattan L, Mundorf C. 2016a. Then and now: lessons learned from community- academic partnerships in environmental health research . Environ Health 15 ( 1 ), PMID: 27899110, 10.1186/s12940-016-0201-5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichtveld M, Kennedy S, Krouse RZ, Grimsley F, El-Dahr J, Bordelon K, et al. 2016b. From design to dissemination: implementing community-based participatory research in postdisaster communities . Am J Public Health 106 ( 7 ):1235–1242, PMID: 27196662, 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303169. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loh P 2016. Community–university collaborations for environmental justice: toward a transformative co-learning model . New Solut 26 ( 3 ):412–428, PMID: 27540025, 10.1177/1048291116662690. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loh P, Sugerman-Brozan J, Wiggins S, Noiles D, Archibald C. 2002. From asthma to AirBeat: community-driven monitoring of fine particles and black carbon in Roxbury, Massachusetts . Environ Health Perspect 110 ( suppl 2 ):297–301, PMID: 11929741, 10.1289/ehp.02110s2297. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maantay J 2002. Mapping environmental injustices: pitfalls and potential of geographic information systems in assessing environmental health and equity . Environ Health Perspect 110 ( suppl 2 ):161–171, PMID: 11929725, 10.1289/ehp.02110s2161. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macaulay AC, Jagosh J, Seller R, Henderson J, Cargo M, Greenhalgh T, et al. 2011. Assessing the benefits of participatory research: a rationale for a realist review . Glob Health Promot 18 ( 2 ):45–48, PMID: 21744664, 10.1177/1757975910383936. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Madrigal DS, Minkler M, Parra KL, Mundo C, Cardenas Gonzalez JE, Jimenez R, et al. 2016. Improving Latino youths’ environmental health literacy and leadership skills through participatory research on chemical exposures in cosmetics: the HERMOSA study . Int Q Community Health Educ 36 ( 4 ):231–240, PMID: 27431602, 10.1177/0272684X16657734. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Madrigal D, Salvatore A, Casillas G, Casillas C, Vera I, Eskenazi B, et al. 2014. Health in my community: conducting and evaluating PhotoVoice as a tool to promote environmental health and leadership among Latino/a youth . Prog Community Health Partnersh 8 ( 3 ):317–329, PMID: 25435558, 10.1353/cpr.2014.0034. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mah A 2017. Environmental justice in the age of big data: challenging toxic blind spots of voice, speed, and expertise . Environ Sociol 3 ( 2 ):122–133, 10.1080/23251042.2016.1220849. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maida CA 2011. Participatory action research and urban environmental justice: the Pacoima CARE Project . In: Environmental Anthropology Today . Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis Group. [ Google Scholar ]
• Málovics G, Creţan R, Méreine-Berki B, Toth J. 2019. Socio-environmental justice, participatory development, and empowerment of segregated urban Roma: Lessons from Szeged, Hungary . Cities , 91 , 137–145, 10.1016/j.cities.2018.11.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marmot M, Allen JJ. 2014. Social determinants of health equity . Am J Public Health 104 ( suppl 4 ):S517–S519, PMID: 25100411, 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302200. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Masuda JR, Poland B, Baxter J. 2010. Reaching for environmental health justice: Canadian experiences for a comprehensive research, policy and advocacy agenda in health promotion . Health Promot Int 25 ( 4 ):453–463, PMID: 20615911, 10.1093/heapro/daq041. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Masuda JR, Teelucksingh C, Zupancic T, Crabtree A, Haber R, Skinner E, et al. 2012. Out of our inner city backyards: re-scaling urban environmental health inequity assessment . Soc Sci Med 75 ( 7 ):1244–1253, PMID: 22749441, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.034. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthew PA 2016. Written/Unwritten . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matz J, Brown P, Brody JG. 2016. Social science–environmental health collaborations: an exciting new direction . New Solut 26 ( 3 ):349–358, PMID: 27554110, 10.1177/1048291116664501. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCauley LA, Lasarev MR, Higgins G, Rothlein J, Muniz J, Ebbert C, et al. 2001. Work characteristics and pesticide exposures among migrant agricultural families: a community-based research approach . Environ Health Perspect 109 ( 5 ):533–538, PMID: 11401767, 10.1289/ehp.01109533. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCloskey DJ, Akintobi TH, Bonham A, Cook J, Coyne-Beasley T. 2011. Principles of Community Engagement . 2nd ed. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merriam SB, Johnson-Bailey J, Lee M-Y, Kee Y, Ntseane G, Muhamad M. 2001. Power and positionality: negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures . Int J Lifelong Educ 20 ( 5 ):405–416, 10.1080/02601370120490. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer M 2010. The rise of the knowledge broker . Sci Commun 32 ( 1 ):118–127, 10.1177/1075547009359797. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer MA, Hendricks M, Newman GD, Masterson JH, Cooper JT, Sansom G, et al. 2018. Participatory action research: tools for disaster resilience education . Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ 9 ( 4–5 ):402–419, PMID: 30519288, 10.1108/IJDRBE-02-2017-0015. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michener L, Cook J, Ahmed SM, Yonas MA, Coyne-Beasley T, Aguilar-Gaxiola S. 2012. Aligning the goals of community-engaged research: why and how academic health centers can successfully engage with communities to improve health . Acad Med 87 ( 3 ):285–291, PMID: 22373619, 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182441680. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller PK, Waghiyi V, Welfinger-Smith G, Byrne SC, Kava J, Gologergen J, et al. 2013. Community-based participatory research projects and policy engagement to protect environmental health on St Lawrence Island, Alaska . Int J Circumpolar Health 72 ( 1 ):21656, PMID: 23977641, 10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21656. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minkler M 2004. Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory research . Health Educ Behav 31 ( 6 ):684–697, PMID: 15539542, 10.1177/1090198104269566. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minkler M, Garcia AP, Williams J, LoPresti T, Lilly J. 2010. Sí se puede: using participatory research to promote environmental justice in a Latino community in San Diego, California . J Urban Health 87 ( 5 ):796–812, PMID: 20683782, 10.1007/s11524-010-9490-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minkler M, Vásquez VB, Shepard P. 2006. Promoting environmental health policy through community based participatory research: a case study from Harlem, New York . J Urban Health 83 ( 1 ):101–110, PMID: 16736358, 10.1007/s11524-005-9010-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minkler M, Vásquez VB, Tajik M, Petersen D. 2008. Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: the role of community and partnership capacity . Health Educ Behav 35 ( 1 ):119–137, PMID: 16861594, 10.1177/1090198106287692. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moezzi M, Janda KB, Rotmann S. 2017. Using stories, narratives, and storytelling in energy and climate change research . Energy Res Soc Sci 31 :1–10, 10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.034. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohai P, Pellow D, Roberts JT. 2009. Environmental justice . Annu Rev Environ Resour 34 ( 1 ):405–430, 10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP, PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement . PLoS Med 6 ( 7 ):e1000097, PMID: 19621072, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muhammad M, Wallerstein N, Sussman AL, Avila M, Belone L, Duran B. 2015. Reflections on researcher identity and power: the impact of positionality on community based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes . Crit Sociol (Eugene) 41 ( 7–8 ):1045–1063, PMID: 27429512, 10.1177/0896920513516025. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice. 2017. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity . Baciu A, Negussie, Y, Geller, A, and Weinstein, JN, eds. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman SD, Andrews JO, Magwood GS, Jenkins C, Cox MJ, Williamson DC. 2011. Community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a synthesis of best processes . Prev Chronic Dis 8 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Fallon LR, Dearry A. 2002. Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance environmental health sciences . Environ Health Perspect 110 ( suppl 2 ):155–159, 10.1289/ehp.02110s2155. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Fallon L, Finn S. 2015. Citizen science and community-engaged research in environmental public health . Lab Matters 4 :5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortiz K, Nash J, Shea L, Oetzel J, Garoutte J, Sanchez-Youngman S, et al. 2020. Partnerships, processes, and outcomes: a health equity-focused scoping meta-review of community-engaged scholarship . Annu Rev Public Health 41 :177–199, PMID: 31922931, 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094220. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ottinger G 2010. Buckets of resistance: standards and the effectiveness of citizen science . Sci Technol Human Values 35 ( 2 ):244–270, 10.1177/0162243909337121. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ottinger G 2013. Refining Expertise: How Responsible Engineers Subvert Environmental Justice Challenges . New York, NY: NYU Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ottinger G 2017. Making sense of citizen science: stories as a hermeneutic resource . Energy Res Soc Sci 31 :41–49, 10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ottinger G, Sarantschin E. 2017. Exposing infrastructure: how activists and experts connect ambient air monitoring and environmental health . Environ Sociol 3 ( 2 ):155–165, 10.1080/23251042.2016.1226690. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pandya RE 2012. A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US . Front Ecol Environ 10 ( 6 ):314–317, 10.1890/120007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parker EA, Chung LK, Israel BA, Reyes A, Wilkins D. 2010. Community organizing network for environmental health: using a community health development approach to increase community capacity around reduction of environmental triggers . J Prim Prev 31 ( 1–2 ):41–58, PMID: 20306137, 10.1007/s10935-010-0207-7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parker EA, Israel BA, Williams M, Brakefield-Caldwell W, Lewis TC, Robins T, et al. 2003. Community action against asthma . J Gen Intern Med 18 ( 7 ):558–567, PMID: 12848839, 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20322.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Payne-Sturges D, Gee GC, Crowder K, Hurley BJ, Lee C, Morello-Frosch R, et al. 2006. Workshop summary: connecting social and environmental factors to measure and track environmental health disparities . Environ Res 102 ( 2 ):146–153, PMID: 16438950, 10.1016/j.envres.2005.11.001. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Payne-Sturges DC, Korfmacher KS, Cory-Slechta DA, Jimenez M, Symanski E, Carr Shmool JL, et al. 2015. Engaging communities in research on cumulative risk and social stress-environment interactions: lessons learned from EPA’s STAR program . Environ Justice 8 ( 6 ):203–212, PMID: 27688822, 10.1089/env.2015.0025. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Payne-Sturges DC, Scammell MK, Levy JI, Cory-Slechta DA, Symanski E, Carr Shmool JL, et al. 2018. Methods for evaluating the combined effects of chemical and nonchemical exposures for cumulative environmental health risk assessment . Int J Environ Res Pub Health 15 ( 12 ):2797, 10.3390/ijerph15122797. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennell KG, Thompson M, Rice JW, Senier L, Brown P, Suuberg E. 2013. Bridging research and environmental regulatory processes: the role of knowledge brokers . Environ Sci Technol 47 ( 21 ):11985–11992, PMID: 24083557, 10.1021/es4025244. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• People of Color Environmental Leadership. 1991. The Principles of Environmental Justice (EJ) . http://www.ejnet.org/ej/ [accessed 10 September 2020].
• Petersen D, Minkler M, Vásquez VB, Baden AC. 2006. Community-Based participatory research as a tool for policy change: a case study of the Southern California Environmental Justice Collaborative . Rev Policy Res 23 ( 2 ):339–354, 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00204.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petersen DM, Minkler M, Vásquez VB, Kegler MC, Malcoe LH, Whitecrow S. 2007. Using community-based participatory research to shape policy and prevent lead exposure among Native American children . Prog Community Health Partnersh 1 ( 3 ):249–256, PMID: 20208287, 10.1353/cpr.2007.0028. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pettibone KG, Parras J, Croisant SP, Drew CH. 2014. Evaluating community and campus environmental public health programs . Prog Community Health Partnersh 8 ( 2 ):249–257, PMID: 25152107, 10.1353/cpr.2014.0026. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ponder-Brookins P, Witt J, Steward J, Greenwell D, Chew GL, Samuel Y, et al. 2014. Incorporating community-based participatory research principles into environmental health research: challenges and lessons learned from a housing pilot study . J Environ Health 76 ( 10 ):8–17, PMID: 24988659. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Postma J 2008. Elucidating empowerment in El Proyecto Bienestar (the Well-Being Project) . J Adv Nurs 62 ( 4 ):441–450, PMID: 18476944, 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04605.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quach T, Garcia E, Behren JV, Tran J, Tran TD, Fu L, et al. 2015. Environmental street audits and black carbon measurements in Vietnamese immigrant communities . Prog Community Health Partnersh 9 ( 2 ):179–190, PMID: 26412760, 10.1353/cpr.2015.0036. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quandt SA, Doran AM, Rao P, Hoppin JA, Snively BM, Arcury TA. 2004. Reporting pesticide assessment results to farmworker families: development, implementation, and evaluation of a risk communication strategy . Environ Health Perspect 112 ( 5 ):636–642, PMID: 15064174, 10.1289/ehp.6754. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quandt SA, Thomas AA, Aaron IP. 2001. Something for everyone? A community and academic partnership to address farmworker pesticide exposure in North Carolina . Environ Health Perspect 109 ( suppl 3 ):435–441, PMID: 11427393, 10.1289/ehp.01109s3435. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quigley D. 2011. Objectivity and ethics in environmental health science . In: Encyclopedia of Environmental Health , Nriagu JO, ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 207–215. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quigley D 2016. Building cultural competence in environmental studies and natural resource sciences . Soc Nat Resour 29 ( 6 ):725–737, 10.1080/08941920.2015.1080338. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quigley D, Levine A, Sonnenfeld DA, Brown P, Tian Q, Wei X. 2019. Survey on using ethical principles in environmental field research with place-based communities . Sci Eng Ethics 25 ( 2 ):477–517, PMID: 29299754, 10.1007/s11948-017-9981-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quigley D, Handy D, Goble R, Sanchez V, George P. 2000. Participatory research strategies in nuclear risk management for native communities . J Health Commun 5 ( 4 ):305–331, PMID: 11191016, 10.1080/10810730050199123. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Radil SM, Anderson MB. 2018. Rethinking PGIS: participatory or (post)political GIS? Prog Human Geog 43 ( 2 ):195–213, 10.1177/0309132517750774. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Brusseau ML, Artiola JF, Maier RM, Gandolfi AJ. 2014a. Environmental research translation: enhancing interactions with communities at contaminated sites . Sci Total Environ 497–498 :651–664, PMID: 25173762, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.08.021. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Brusseau ML, Artiola JF, Maier RM, Gandolfi AJ, Caron RM. 2014b. Building a co-created citizen science program with gardeners neighboring a superfund site: The Gardenroots case study . Int Public Health J 7 ( 1 ). [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravenscroft J, Schell LM, Cole T. 2015. Applying the community partnership approach to human biology research: research in partnership with communities . Am J Hum Biol 27 ( 1 ):6–15, PMID: 25380288, 10.1002/ajhb.22652. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robottom I, Colquhoun D. 1992. Participatory research, environmental health education and the politics of method . Health Educ Res 7 ( 4 ):457–469, 10.1093/her/7.4.457. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rütten A, Gelius P. 2011. The interplay of structure and agency in health promotion: integrating a concept of structural change and the policy dimension into a multi-level model and applying it to health promotion principles and practice . Soc Sci Med 73 ( 7 ):953–959, PMID: 21849229, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.07.010. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson N, Sagovac S, Schulz A, Fink L, Mentz G, Reyes A, et al. 2020. Mobilizing for community benefits to assess health and promote environmental justice near the Gordie Howe International Bridge . Int J Environ Res Public Health 17 ( 13 ):4680, 10.3390/ijerph17134680. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson N, Roberson T. 2019. A plan for prevention: unpacking the determinants of health as predictors of environmental health and justice disparities in communities . APHA 2019 Annual Meeting and Expo, 2 Nov–6 Nov . Philadelphia, PA.
• Sandhaus S, Kaufmann D, Ramirez-Andreotta M. 2018. Public participation, trust and data sharing: gardens as hubs for citizen science and environmental health literacy efforts . Int J Sci Educ B Commun Public Engagem 9 ( 1 ):54–71, PMID: 31485378, 10.1080/21548455.2018.1542752. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. 2018. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization . Qual Quant 52 ( 4 ):1893–1907, PMID: 29937585, 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saxton DI, Brown P, Seguinot-Medina S, Eckstein L, Carpenter DO, Miller P, et al. 2015. Environmental health and justice and the right to research: institutional review board denials of community-based chemical biomonitoring of breast milk . Environ Health 14 :90, PMID: 26606980, 10.1186/s12940-015-0076-x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scammell MK 2010. Qualitative environmental health research: an analysis of the literature, 1991–2008 . Environ Health Perspect 118 ( 8 ):1146–1154, PMID: 20421191, 10.1289/ehp.0901762. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scammell MK, Howard GJ. 2020. Health Studies Guide . Boston, MA: Boston University School of Public Health. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schell LM, Ravenscroft J, Cole M, Jacobs A, Newman J, Akwesasne Task Force on the Environment. 2005. Health disparities and toxicant exposure of Akwesasne Mohawk young adults: a partnership approach to research . Environ Health Perspect 113 ( 12 ):1826–1832, PMID: 16330372, 10.1289/ehp.7914. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schindel A, Tolbert S, Rodriguez A. 2019. Engaging in Research Practices as Critical Scholars/Activists: A Metalogue . In: Bazzul J, Siry C. (eds) Critical Voices in Science Education Research. Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol 17. Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978-3-319-99990-6_18. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlosberg D, Collins LB. 2014. From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice . WIREs Clim Change 5 ( 3 ):359–374, 10.1002/wcc.275. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schnarch B 2004. Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: a critical analysis of contemporary first nations research and some options for first nations communities. Int J Aboriginal Health 1 :80–95, 10.3138/ijih.v1i1.28934. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulz AJ, Mentz GB, Sampson N, Ward M, Anderson R, R de M, et al. 2016. Race and the distribution of social and physical environmental risk: a case example from the Detroit metropolitan area . Du Bois Rev 13 ( 2 ):285–304, PMID: 28951763, 10.1017/S1742058X16000163. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz NA, von Glascoe CA, Torres V, Ramos L, Soria-Delgado C. 2015. “ Where they (live, work and) spray”: pesticide exposure, childhood asthma and environmental justice among Mexican-American farmworkers . Health Place 32 :83–92, PMID: 25659530, 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.12.016. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott DN 2016. ‘ We are the monitors now’: experiential knowledge, transcorporeality and environmental justice . Soc Legal Studies 25 ( 3 ):261–287, 10.1177/0964663915601166. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Senier L, Hudson B, Fort S, Hoover E, Tillson R, Brown P. 2008. Brown Superfund Basic Research Program: a multistakeholder partnership addresses real-world problems in contaminated communities . Environ Sci Technol 42 ( 13 ):4655–4662, PMID: 18677987, 10.1021/es7023498. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Serrant-Green L 2002. Black on black: methodological issues for black researchers working in minority ethnic communities . Nurse Res 9 ( 4 ):30–44, PMID: 12149895, 10.7748/nr2002.07.9.4.30.c6196. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Severtson DJ, Baumann LC, Will JA. 2002. A participatory assessment of environmental health concerns in an Ojibwa community . Public Health Nurs 19 ( 1 ):47–58, PMID: 11841682, 10.1046/j.1525-1446.2002.19007.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shirk J 2020. Taking Responsibility . Citizen Science Association; https://www.citizenscience.org/2020/06/08/taking-responsibility/ [accessed 21 September 2020]. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, et al. 2012. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design . Ecol Soc 17 ( 2 ), 10.5751/ES-04705-170229. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shiu‐Thornton S 2003. Addressing cultural competency in research: integrating a community-based participatory research approach . Alcohol Clin Exp Res 27 :1361–1364, PMID: 12966340, 10.1097/01.ALC.0000080200.07061.66. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shrader-Frechette K 2017. How some scientists and engineers contribute to environmental injustice . The Bridge 47 ( 1 ):36–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simonds VW, Wallerstein N, Duran B, Villegas M. 2013. Community-based participatory research: its role in future cancer research and public health practice . Prev Chronic Dis 10 :E78, PMID: 23680507, 10.5888/pcd10.120205. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh A 2011. Visual artefacts as boundary objects in participatory research paradigm . J Visual Art Pract 10 ( 1 ):35–50, 10.1386/jvap.10.1.35_1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spencer-Hwang R, Soret S, Valladares J, Torres X, Pasco-Rubio M, Dougherty M, et al. 2016. Strategic partnerships for change in an environmental justice community: the ENRRICH study . Prog Community Health Partnersh 10 ( 4 ):541–550, PMID: 28569679, 10.1353/cpr.2016.0062. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Srinivasan S, Collman GW. 2005. Evolving partnerships in community . Environ Health Perspect 113 ( 12 ):1814–1816, PMID: 16330370, 10.1289/ehp.7911. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staudt K, Dane’el M, Márquez-Velarde G. 2016. In the shadow of a steel recycling plant in these neoliberal times: health disparities among Hispanics in a border colonia . Local Environ 21 ( 5 ):636–652, 10.1080/13549839.2015.1016902. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stengers I 2018. Another Science Is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science . Cambridge, UK: Polity. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoeker R 1999. Are academics irrelevant? Roles for scholars in participatory research . Am Behav Sci 42 :840–854, 10.1177/00027649921954561. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stokes SC, Hood DB, Zokovitch J, Close FT. 2010. Blueprint for communicating risk and preventing environmental injustice . J Health Care Poor Underserved 21 ( 1 ):35–52, PMID: 20173254, 10.1353/hpu.0.0234. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suarez-Balcazar Y, Harper GW, Lewis R. 2005. An interactive and contextual model of community-university collaborations for research and action . Health Educ Behav 32 ( 1 ):84–101, PMID: 15642756, 10.1177/1090198104269512. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan J. 2019. Using Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed in a community-based participatory research approach to environmental health literacy . In: Environmental Health Literacy . Finn S, O’Fallon, LR, eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 285–314. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan J, Croisant S, Howarth M, Rowe GT, Fernando H, Phillips-Savoy A, et al. 2018. Building and maintaining a citizen science network with fishermen and fishing communities post Deepwater Horizon oil disaster using a CBPR approach . New Solut 28 ( 3 ):416–447, PMID: 30180781, 10.1177/1048291118795156. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan J, Lloyd RS. 2006. The Forum Theatre of Augusto Boal: a dramatic model for dialogue and community-based environmental science . Local Environ 11 ( 6 ):627–646, 10.1080/13549830600853684. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan J, Parady K. 2018. “ Keep working for environmental justice no matter how bleak things look. Don’t give up. Don’t just go away”: an interview with Wilma Subra . New Solut 28 ( 3 ):487–500, PMID: 30131016, 10.1177/1048291118795161. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan J, Petronella S, Brooks E, Murillo M, Primeau L, Ward J. 2008. Theatre of the oppressed and environmental justice communities: a transformational therapy for the body politic . J Health Psychol 13 ( 2 ):166–179, PMID: 18375623, 10.1177/1359105307086710. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan J, Rosenberg B. 2018a. “ I remember the mental chaos while they tried to seal the well and clean up the oil spill – how much fear and uncertainty everyone felt”: an interview with Marylee and Michael Orr, Louisiana Environmental Action Network . New Solut 28 ( 3 ):467–486, PMID: 30131015, 10.1177/1048291118795154. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan J, Rosenberg B. 2018b. “ Losing your land you feel like you’re losing your identity, like you’re experiencing slow death”: an interview with Chief Thomas Dardar-Houma Nation . New Solut 28 ( 3 ):501–514, PMID: 30176788, 10.1177/1048291118795155. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. 2019. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements . Health Info Libr J 36 ( 3 ):202–222, PMID: 31541534, 10.1111/hir.12276. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szasz MC 2001. Between Indian and White Worlds: The Cultural Broker . Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tajik M, Minkler M. 2006. Environmental justice research and action: a case study in political economy and community-academic collaboration . Int Q Community Health Educ 26 ( 3 ):213–231, PMID: 17827092, 10.2190/IQ.26.3.b. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor D 2014. Toxic Communities: Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential Mobility . New York, NY: NYU Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teedon P, Galea KS, MacCalman L, Jones K, Cocker J, Cherrie JW, et al. 2015. Engaging with community researchers for exposure science: lessons learned from a pesticide biomonitoring study . PLoS One 10 ( 8 ):e0136347, PMID: 26308094, 10.1371/journal.pone.0136347. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teixeira S, Sing E. 2016. Reclaim Northside: an environmental justice approach to address vacant land in Pittsburgh . Fam Community Health 39 ( 3 ):207–215, PMID: 27214676, 10.1097/FCH.0000000000000107. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson L, Sugg M, Runkle J. 2018. Report-back for geo-referenced environmental data: a case study on personal monitoring of temperature in outdoor workers . Geospat Health 13 ( 1 ), PMID: 29772877, 10.4081/gh.2018.629. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tracy SJ 2010. Qualitative quality: eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research . Qualit Inq 16 ( 10 ):837–851, 10.1177/1077800410383121. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. Environmental Justice: EJ 2020 Glossary . https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ej-2020-glossary [accessed 25 August 2020].
• Van Olphen J, Ottoson J, Green L, Barlow J, Koblick K, Hiatt R. 2009. Evaluation of a partnership approach to translating research on breast cancer and the environment . Prog Community Health Partnersh 3 ( 3 ):213–226, PMID: 20208222, 10.1353/cpr.0.0081. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Garlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D. 2004. Community‐Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence: Summary . Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wallerstein N, Duran B, Oetzel JG, Minkler M. 2017. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: Advancing Social and Health Equity . San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang C, Burris MA. 1997. Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment . Health Educ Behav 24 ( 3 ):369–387, PMID: 9158980, 10.1177/109019819702400309. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward VL, House AO, Hamer S. 2009. Knowledge brokering: exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action . BMC Health Serv Res 9 ( 1 ):12, PMID: 19149888, 10.1186/1472-6963-9-12. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Warren CM, Knight R, Holl JL, Gupta RS. 2014. Using videovoice methods to enhance community outreach and engagement for the National Children’s Study . Health Promot Pract 15 ( 3 ):383–394, 10.1177/1524839913503470. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watkins BX, Shepard PM, Corbin-Mark CD. 2009. Completing the circle: a model for effective community review of environmental health research . Am J Public Health 99 ( S3 ):S567–S577, 10.2105/AJPH.2008.149369. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weed DL, McKeown RE. 2003. Science and social responsibility in public health . Environ Health Perspect 111 ( 14 ):1804–1808, PMID: 14602514, 10.1289/ehp.6198. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiebe SM 2016. Guardians of the environment in Canada’s Chemical Valley . Citizenship Studies 20 ( 1 ):18–33, 10.1080/13621025.2015.1075470. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wier M, Sciammas C, Seto E, Bhatia R, Rivard T. 2009. Health, traffic, and environmental justice: collaborative research and community action in San Francisco, California . Am J Public Health 99 ( suppl 3 ):S499–S504, PMID: 19890147, 10.2105/AJPH.2008.148916. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams EM, Anderson J, Lee R, White J, Hahn-Baker D. 2010. Behind the Fence Forum Theater: an arts performance partnership to address lupus and environmental justice . New Solut 19 ( 4 ):467–479, PMID: 20129904, 10.2190/NS.19.4.f. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson SM 2009. An ecologic framework to study and address environmental justice and community health issues . Environ Justice 2 ( 1 ):15–24, 10.1089/env.2008.0515. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson S, Aber A, Ravichandran V, Wright L, Muhammad O. 2017. Soil contamination in urban communities impacted by industrial pollution and goods movement activities . Environ Justice 10 ( 1 ):16–22, 10.1089/env.2016.0040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson OR, Bumpass NG, Wilson OM, Snipes MH. 2008. The West End Revitalization Association (WERA)’s right to basic amenities movement: voice and language of ownership and management of public health solutions in Mebane, North Carolina . Prog Community Health Partnersh 2 ( 3 ):237–243, PMID: 20208201, 10.1353/cpr.0.0027. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson S, Campbell D, Dalemarre L, Fraser-Rahim H, Williams E. 2014. A critical review of an authentic and transformative environmental justice and health community–university partnership . Int J Environ Res Public Health 11 ( 12 ):12817–12834, PMID: 25514142, 10.3390/ijerph111212817. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson SM, Wilson OR, Heaney CD, Cooper J. 2007. Use of EPA collaborative problem-solving model to obtain environmental justice in North Carolina . Prog Community Health Partnersh 1 ( 4 ):327–337, PMID: 20208212, 10.1353/cpr.2007.0036. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wing S 2002. Social responsibility and research ethics in community-driven studies of industrialized hog production . Environ Health Perspect 110 ( 5 ):437–444, PMID: 12003746, 10.1289/ehp.02110437. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wing S 2005. Environmental justice, science, and public health . Environ Health Perspect , 54–63. http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/environmental-justice-science-public-health/docview/222647612/se-2?accountid=8360 . [ Google Scholar ]
• WHO (World Health Organization). 2018. Non communicable diseases . https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases [accessed 30 December 2020].
• Yuan NP, Mayer BM, Joshweseoma L, Clichee D, Teufel-Shone NI. 2020. Development of guidelines to improve the effectiveness of community advisory boards in health research . Prog Community Health Partnersh 14 ( 2 ):259–269, PMID: 33416647, 10.1353/cpr.2020.0026. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zagozewski R, Judd-Henrey I, Nilson S, Bharadwaj L. 2011. Perspectives on past and present waste disposal practices: a Community-Based participatory research project in three Saskatchewan first nations communities . Environ Health Insights 5 :9–20, PMID: 21573032, 10.4137/EHI.S6974. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Articles on Environmental justice

Displaying 1 - 20 of 106 articles.

Native American voices are finally factoring into energy projects – a hydropower ruling is a victory for environmental justice on tribal lands

Emily Benton Hite , Saint Louis University and Denielle Perry , Northern Arizona University

New York City greenlights congestion pricing – here’s how this toll plan is expected to improve traffic, air quality and public transit

John Rennie Short , University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The world is not moving fast enough on climate change — social sciences can help explain why

Fayola Helen Jacobs , University of Minnesota ; Candis Callison , University of British Columbia , and Elizabeth Marino , Oregon State University

Heart attacks, cancer, dementia, premature deaths: 4 essential reads on the health effects driving EPA’s new fine particle air pollution standard

Jennifer Weeks , The Conversation

Biden’s ‘hard look’ at liquefied natural gas exports raises a critical question: How does natural gas fit with US climate goals?

Emily Grubert , University of Notre Dame

Citizen science projects tend to attract white, affluent, well-educated volunteers − here’s how we recruited a more diverse group to identify lead pipes in homes

Danielle Lin Hunter , North Carolina State University ; Caren Cooper , North Carolina State University , and Valerie Ann Johnson , Shaw University

What can cities do to correct racism and help all communities live longer? It starts with city planning

Catherine Brinkley , University of California, Davis

Parasitic infections hit the health of low-income Black communities where states have neglected sewage systems

Theresa E. Gildner , Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis

Biden’s strategy for cutting carbon emissions from electricity generation could extend the lives of fossil fuel power plants

Jennifer K. Rushlow , Vermont Law & Graduate School

The EV transition isn’t just about cars – the broader goal should be access to clean mobility for everyone

Sita M. Syal , University of Michigan

Environmental justice has the White House’s attention, building on 40 years of struggle – but California suggests new funding won’t immediately solve deeply entrenched problems

Tracy Perkins , Arizona State University

Loss and damage: Who is responsible when climate change harms the world’s poorest countries?

Bethany Tietjen , Tufts University

Black women endure legacy of racism in homeownership and making costly repairs

Robin Bartram , Tulane University

How to steer money for drinking water and sewer upgrades to the communities that need it most

Andrian Lee , University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Melissa Scanlan , University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

People of color are as interested in buying electric cars as white consumers – the biggest obstacle is access to charging

Andrea Marpillero-Colomina , The New School

Environmental impact assessments don’t work in Nigeria: here’s why

Synda Obaji , University of Birmingham

Electric school buses are taking students back to school – bringing cleaner air and lower maintenance costs to school districts across the country

Boosting renewable energy use can happen quickly – and reduce harm to low-income people if done thoughtfully

Erin Baker , UMass Amherst

Community and school gardens don’t magically sprout bountiful benefits

Mitchell McLarnon , Concordia University

If all the vehicles in the world were to convert to electric, would it be quieter?

Erica D. Walker , Brown University

Related Topics

• Air pollution
• Biden administration
• Climate change
• Climate justice
• Drinking water
• Flint water crisis
• Fossil fuels
• Public health

Top contributors

Lynton K. Caldwell Professor, Indiana University

Associate Professor of Sociology; Co-Founder, Center for Environmental Justice at CSU, Colorado State University

Adjunct Lecturer in Urban Studies, The New School

Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Professor, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management & School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

Assistant Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles

Associate Professor of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California

Assistant Professor, Columbia University

Professor of Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan

Associate Professor, Honorary Principal Fellow, Informal Urbanism Research Hub (InfUr-), University of Melbourne, The University of Melbourne

Chancellor's Professor of Earth Sciences and Executive Director, Indiana University Environmental Resilience Institute, Indiana University

Assistant Professor of Applied Environmental Health , University of Maryland

Assistant Professor of Environmental Policy and Sustainability Management, The New School

York Research Chair in Environmental Law & Justice in the Green Economy, York University, Canada

Associate Professor, Anthropology & Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

About EPA Environmental Justice Research

Environmental justice will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards, and has equal access to the decision-making process for a healthy environment.

• What is Environmental Justice Research?
• What is the role of environmental research at EPA?

What is Environmental Justice? 

Overall, the United States has made tremendous strides in improving environmental conditions in our air, water, and land since the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. However, the benefits of those improvements, such as reducing environmental health risks, have not been enjoyed evenly or equitably. 

Many studies have established that sources of environmental hazards are disproportionately located in communities that have a majority population of people of color, low-income residents, or indigenous peoples.

Environmental Justice is the recognition of those inequities—and of the need to address them. It is defined as “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. 

Learn more about Environmental Justice at EPA.

What is Environmental Justice Research 

Like in other areas of environmental protection, research plays a critical role in advancing environmental justice. EPA researchers play a leading role in that effort across the environmental justice and research communities. 

What is the role of environmental justice research at EPA?

EPA research related to environmental justice is aimed at strengthening the scientific foundation for actions at the Agency, Tribal, State, local, and community levels to address environmental and health inequalities in overburdened populations and communities.

Through a robust research portfolio using both fundamental and community-based research approaches, Agency scientists and their grantees are developing the data and information, as well as model, tools, and other translational resources to support decision-making.   The Agency’s Office of Research and Development ORD has identified four core research areas for addressing environmental justice: 

• Developing decision-support tools, 
• Improving our understanding of environmental health disparities and developing data and methods for assessing cumulative risk; 
• Supporting Tribal science; and 
• Characterizing climate justice. 

Learn more about EPA’s environmental justice research program . 

• Helping Environmental Justice Take Root
• Health Disparities and Risks
• Environmental Justice and Air Pollution
• Environmental Justice and Contaminated Sites
• Developing Decision Support Tools

• [email protected]

The Alliance for Citizen Engagement

Environmental justice research paper, table of contents, executive summary.

Environmental justice is both a field of study and a powerful social movement that is concerned with the unequal distribution of environmental benefits (e.g. clean water, parks, healthy food, etc.) and costs (e.g. unsafe housing, air pollution, soil pollution, etc.) between different social groups. Environmental justice is an intersectional concept that includes both environmental conservation and social justice elements, as issues that impact the environment have disproportionate impacts on certain people who live there. Environmental justice aims to ensure that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, has the same degree of environmental protection and equal access to the processes that directly impact the communities they live in. Although the concept of environmental justice emerged as recently as the early 1980’s, it has since gained significant political attention. Its goals have been incorporated into national, state, and local policies across the country.

The history of environmental justice within the United States predates the country’s initial founding and begins with the earliest European settlements of the 15th century. European colonization forced indigenous groups away from their traditional lands and ignored the methods they used to manage land sustainably. Throughout the years, environmental injustices continued to take on various forms as the country evolved. For example, larger populations created a need for increased city planning, and urban developers placed most waste incinerators in predominantly low-income and minority communities . Today, environmental injustices are observable in a wide variety of circumstances, ranging from food deserts, to water pollution, to flooding vulnerability. Our understanding of environmental injustices has evolved especially quickly over the last few decades, as the reality of climate change and its repercussions are more widely recognized by both the public and policymakers. For instance, as natural disasters exacerbated by climate change threaten the nation’s wellbeing, we find that those unable to evacuate, adequately prepare, and recover are already-vulnerable communities. 

Elected officials across the United States have made attempts to address and combat environmental injustice on all levels of government. Local attempts have been made through municipal bans on certain activities, strengthened environmental review processes, enforced public health codes, and many other methods. While not every state has embraced environmental justice goals, many states such as California, Virginia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and several others have committed to environmental equity by creating Offices for Environmental Justice, prioritizing environmental justice through legislation, enforcing environmental justice-focused programs, and more. Federal responses to environmental injustices have varied dramatically over the last few administrations, with some being less favorable to environmental justice advocates than others. However, with a new administration now in place, many are hopeful that current President Joe Biden will live up to the promises he has made to reduce the environmental burden faced by marginalized communities across the nation. 

Ongoing efforts to improve the environmental conditions of overburdened populations exist both across the country and abroad. Further reforms are also being discussed, with many pushing for potential solutions such as encouraging and valuing indigenous voices on environmental topics , better educating students on environmental injustices , mandating environmental justice analyses for all land use projects, and more.

Introduction

Marginalized Communities and Environmental Justice

Marginalized communities are communities that face discrimination and exclusion in various forms based on their identities. The norms and processes affecting marginalized groups put them at a severe social, cultural, economic, and political disadvantage. Marginalized communities typically include racial/cultural/religious minorities, low-income and homeless individuals, immigrants, disabled individuals, refugees, and more. Some examples of exclusion and discrimination faced by such groups include, but are not limited to, disenfranchisement, unequal representation in politics, unequal pay, and harassment.

Environmental justice is an immensely important topic, as marginalized communities often face significantly worse environmental conditions than those who are of a higher socioeconomic status. Because marginalized communities have fewer resources, less time, and less political power to resist unequal environmental conditions, they will continue to have less of an influence over the environmental policies that affect them most. Marginalized communities experiencing environmental inequities are often referred to as environmental justice communities . 

Examples of Environmental Injustices

Environmental injustices can be observed in a number of situations. These examples have changed over time as the United States has grown and modernized. During European colonization of the Americas, examples of environmental injustices included indigenous exclusion and displacement from ancestral lands. Today, examples of modern environmental injustices have expanded to include a large variety of concerns, and the list continues to grow as climate change poses new and worsening challenges. The following list describes 10 ongoing environmental justice concerns within the United States and its territories, but this list is not exhaustive.

• Water pollution and access: Drinking water violations are issued when a water system does not meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) healthy drinking water standard. Polluted drinking water can arise from a wide variety of sources, such as corroded pipes or industrial discharge. A 2019 study of drinking water violations across the United States confirmed that the rate of such violations is higher in communities with more low-income individuals, racial minorities, and non-native English speakers. Increased drinking water violations were also observed in areas with less reliable access to transportation and more crowded living conditions. Furthermore, these communities experience slow and poor enforcement of laws ensuring clean water access, meaning that these communities face unsafe drinking water conditions more frequently, and for longer . The health implications from contaminant exposure can range from gastroenteritis, to decreased immune system functioning, to cancer. 
• Air pollution: Marginalized communities are more likely to live near highways, industrial plants, waste incinerators, and other significant sources of air pollution. Studies show that approximately 79% of solid waste incinerators within urban areas are located in marginalized communities. The EPA also classifies air pollution as an environmental justice concern due to the fact that marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted by hazardous air quality, and are at a higher risk of developing health issues such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, and reduced lung function.
• Soil pollution: Contaminated sites are areas of land that contain hazardous waste and/or other substances that could potentially harm property, people, or animals. Because those living within a close proximity to such areas tend to be ethnic minorities and lower-class individuals , this raises environmental injustice concerns. Living near contaminated sites puts individuals at a higher risk of developing cancer, experiencing developmental disabilities, birthing children with congenital defects, and more.
• Food deserts: Food deserts are regions where healthy food options are not easily accessible to residents due to insufficient amounts of grocery stores within a practical traveling distance. Food deserts predominantly affect low-income people of color, as research shows that wealthy neighborhoods have 3 or more times the amount of grocery stores than poorer neighborhoods. Food deserts are an environmental justice issue because the lack of affordable, nutritional food is a harmful environmental condition affecting society’s most vulnerable communities. The negative health impacts residents of food deserts face include malnutrition, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and a host of other concerns.
• Wildfire resilience: Wildfires are one type of natural disaster exacerbated by the rising global temperatures associated with climate change. Wildfires, a common occurrence across much of the United States, are burning longer and covering more area than prior decades. With wildfires destroying thousands of homes and other structures each year, those that suffer most are low-income and under-insured individuals who struggle to recover from such significant losses.
• Flooding vulnerability: Climate change increases flooding severity. Whether through weather events or sea level rise, flooding will disproportionately affect already-vulnerable communities. One study estimates that one in ten low-income housing projects are located in areas with a direct risk of flooding, affecting nearly half a million people. This estimate is likely to be even higher, as it is based off of historical climate data and did not account for recently observed changes in climate. Additionally, with the often unaffordable $700/year cost of flood insurance, many low-income individuals and families cannot financially recover from property loss or damage.
• Hurricane preparation and resilience: Climate change increases the wind speeds, rain levels, and storm surges of hurricanes, making them more destructive and deadly . Inequalities in community preparation and recovery from hurricanes negatively impact already-disadvantaged communities. One example of these injustices can be seen in Puerto Rico’s nearly 11-month long delay in electricity restoration following Hurricane Maria. Another example can be seen in how poor and disabled Houston residents were unable to heed Hurricane Harvey evacuation notices , likely a result of not having sufficient resources or capabilities to do so. 
• Pesticide exposure: Pesticides are potent chemical substances used to control insects, rodents, molds, and other organisms that pose a threat to agricultural yields. Pesticide exposure is an environmental justice issue that most affects the United States’ low-income and primarily Hispanic farmworker population . These workers often suffer from disproportionate and chronic exposures to harmful pesticide components such as chlorpyrifos, paraquat, and phorate. Scientists link pesticides to a host of harmful health impacts , and farmworkers have suffered from illnesses ranging from Parkinson’s disease, to blindness, to a long list of cancers . 
• Climate migration: Climate migration describes the forced movement of people from their region of residence because of climate change-related concerns. Climate migration can refer to movement across state or international borders, and can be caused by many dangerous environmental conditions such as sea level rise, drought, frequent hurricanes, deadly wildfires, and more. Because climate change will undoubtedly hit marginalized populations the hardest, those forced to become climate migrants will likely be low-income and minority individuals. 
• Inadequate governmental preparation for natural disasters in disadvantaged communities: With climate change resulting in increasingly severe natural disasters, sufficient planning to ensure human safety is vital. However, in the face of natural disasters, socioeconomic disparities in governmental preparation puts marginalized communities at a much higher risk. For example, this lack of preparation proved immensely fatal during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, where over 1,800 New Orleans residents lost their lives. The improper maintenance of dams and levees in predominantly black neighborhoods allowed them to fail and create massive floods. Additionally, the government did not correctly prepare or implement evacuation procedures, leading to hundreds of avoidable deaths.

Image 2.1 – This image illustrates the noticeable difference in the number of evacuees between wealthier and poorer New Orleans neighborhoods during Hurricane Barry. The French Quarter, a more affluent region of New Orleans, saw higher rates of evacuations in response to a dangerous flood warning (colored in red). Poorer individuals from the Lower Ninth-Ward neighborhoods were unable to evacuate as well (colored in blue), likely due to fewer financial resources for alternative housing and/or a lack of transportation.

Image 2.2 – Created by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, this image details Minnesota’s ongoing struggle with environmental injustices. Overwhelming data supports the idea that Minnesota’s low-income communities and communities of color experience air pollutant exposure on a higher level than the state average. 

Arguments Against Environmental Justice

As previously discussed, the Environmental Justice Movement aims to create a society where everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, experiences the same degree of environmental protection and access to environmental benefits. Thus, environmental justice advocates commonly believe citizens have a right to environmental equity, and therefore work to promote both environmental conservation and social justice. However, not everyone agrees with the goals and methods of the Environmental Justice Movement. Critics of environmental justice believe that the resulting increase in government intervention (e.g., stricter regulations) is unnecessary, and only provides politicians with more power to harm and control American citizens. They claim the stricter rules and regulations following environmental justice advancements would inadvertently prevent the creation of jobs and reduce economic output .

Furthermore, because climate change itself is an environmental justice issue that puts disadvantaged groups in an even more vulnerable position, climate change deniers and/or those who dismiss the seriousness of climate change perpetuate these unjust conditions. Denying or diminishing the impact of humans on the global climate can promote environmentally harmful activities such as fossil fuel combustion, and those consequences most affect marginalized communities. In other words, if someone does not view climate change as an issue, they will not have motivation to address it or its environmental justice implications. 

Finally, because environmental injustices widely impact low-income and homeless communities, some are hesitant to offer forms of aid and protection as they believe poverty is simply a result of one’s work ethic . They attribute economic success to persistence, grit, and effort, and economic deprivation to laziness, substance abuse, and low moral values. External factors and other uncontrollable circumstances are usually considered less relevant to economic circumstances. As a result, some believe that those disproportionately burdened by poor environmental conditions are either deserving of their current circumstances, or are simply not doing enough to improve them.

Appendix 1 provides a description of key terms relating to environmental justice. For those new to the field of environmental justice, it can be helpful to either read Appendix 1 in advance or refer to it while reading the report. 

Further Reading

• https://furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_HousingInTheFloodplain_May2017.pdf
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901121001015
• https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/media/_media/pdf/key_issues/Environment_policy.pdf
• https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/8/15/racial-disparities-and-climate-change
• https://earthjustice.org/blog/2021-march/overlooked-connections-between-black-injustice-and-environmentalism

Historical Overview

The Historical Overview section begins with an analysis of European colonization’s influences on today’s environmental injustices, continues with descriptions of early conservation movements hostile to indigenous peoples, describes increasing attention to civil rights and environmental issues during the mid-20th century, and concludes with a discussion of modern environmental discourse and its resulting social movements. 

15th century-19th century: European Arrival, Colonization, and Racism

European colonization of lands now known as the Americas continues to greatly influence the way many Americans treat the natural environment, as well as one another. The beliefs held by many early European settlers persisted across several centuries and created a tradition of racism and anti-environment sentiments that have contributed to, and continue to exacerbate, environmental injustices. 

Indigenous peoples throughout North America give deep spiritual, social, economic, and cultural significance to their traditional lands. Viewing themselves as a part of nature rather than separate from it, native groups sought to protect the environment and ensure proper and sustainable management practices. For example, indigenous groups recognized the importance of fires in certain ecosystems, and would often carry out strategic land burnings to promote nutrient cycling, foster ecological health, and prevent uncontrollable wildfires. 

Unlike indigenous peoples, however, European colonizers believed that humans were separate from nature, and that nature was something to be conquered, commodified, and exploited . European settlers’ disregard for sustainable indigenous practices led to severe environmental degradation that persists today. Overfishing and overhunting of many wildlife species led to severe population declines and/or extinctions . Aggressive wildfire suppression over centuries results in increasingly destructive fires fueled by years of plant debris accumulation. Widespread deforestation reduced the United States forest cover by hundreds of millions of acres , and exacerbated climate change by decreasing carbon sequestration rates.

Additionally, racist beliefs held by European colonizers perpetuated the idea that certain races and ethnicities are inferior and less deserving of dignified lifestyles. Natives faced cruelty and violence at the hands of European colonizers, such as massacres, forced removal from their ancestral homelands, forced cultural assimilation , mass starvations via food supply limitations, and more. Today, those anti-indigenous beliefs have translated into many native groups being subjected to some of the worst environmental conditions in the nation. Major concerns on native lands include abandoned and contaminated uranium mines, leaking oil-transportation pipelines , disparities in clean water access , and air pollution , to name a few. However, European colonizers’ racism extended past indigenous groups and also included a variety of other ethnicities.

Another major manifestation of European settlers’ racism is seen in the enslavement of Africans. Selling human beings as property to be exploited for labor severely dehumanized enslaved individuals. Treated as sub-human, enslaved Africans were often subjected to notoriously poor conditions at the hands of both slave-owners and many white community members. The end of slavery in the mid-1800’s was not the end of racism against black individuals, as discriminatory beliefs against African Americans passed down from generation to generation still permeated many aspects of American life . Today, one example of continued racism against black communities can be seen in the variety of environmental injustices they face. In comparison to white communities, black communities are 75% more likely to be located near oil and gas refineries, are more likely to live in regions with uncontrolled toxic waste , and are at a higher risk of developing air pollution-related illnesses such as asthma. Furthermore, African Americans own significantly less wealth than non-Hispanic white individuals, experience higher rates of food insecurity, and are more economically vulnerable to natural disasters . The environmental inequities faced by black communities come in many forms, and many are rooted in the racism they have experienced for centuries. In short, hundreds of years of European colonization and racism has played a major role in many of the environmental injustices observable today.  

Image 3.1 : This image contains information on the Dakota Access Pipeline, an underground oil transportation line that spans approximately 1200 miles through 4 different states. This pipeline created significant controversy due to its likelihood of contaminating the environment and the water supplies many Indigenous tribes rely on. This image details how close the pipeline runs to various Native reservations, which puts their health at risk. 

19th Century-early 20th Century: Early Conservation Movement and the Rise of Anti-Asian Discrimination

The mid-19th century marked the beginning of the American conservation movement, a period of time where many advancements towards wilderness preservation took place. Prominent voices of this time period included President Theodore Roosevelt , Henry David Thoreau , and John Muir . Conservationists of this time period sought to protect nature’s scenic beauty. Many of the protected areas established during the early American conservation movement still stand today, such as Yosemite National Park, Mesa Verde National Park, and the Grand Canyon National Park. These protected areas not only allow wildlife species to thrive within their boundaries, they also foster environmental stewardship amongst the American public and provide valuable ecosystem services such as water and air purification. 

However, even when advances were made towards environmental preservation, those efforts were largely harmful to indigenous peoples, as they tended to exclude and displace these groups from their ancestral lands. Native groups were often quickly and violently removed from their homes, or pushed out over several decades. For example, in 1886 the United States Army forcefully gained control of the Yellowstone National Park region and used violent measures to discourage Natives from returning. In 1895 the Blackfeet tribe, faced with starvation from the US government’s widespread buffalo killings and insufficient rations , sold 800,000 acres of their reservation in order to purchase food and supplies for their people. By 1897, that land was designated as a forest reserve, and was later used to establish Glacier National park in 1910. John Muir, one of the most prominent faces of the early conservation movement, stated that indigenous peoples “ have no right place in the landscape .” Early conservation efforts were almost exclusively made with the intent to benefit white, middle- and upper-class citizens. 

Anti-Asian discrimination also became more prevalent during the latter half of the 19th century as more Asians immigrated to America to pursue job opportunities. Their early contributions were vital in aiding the country’s development , as they worked as farmers, miners, fishermen, railroad constructors, and factory workers. Throughout their long history of settlement in the United States, however, Asian Americans have continuously faced labor exploitation , exclusion , violence , xenophobia , and many other forms of inequities. The legacy of early anti-Asian racism still harms today’s Asian communities in a number of ways, including environmental injustices . To name a few examples, Asian Americans often live in areas with uncontrolled and dangerous waste sites , work in overcrowded and chemical-laden garment factories , and face greater cancer risks from air pollution than white individuals. Although environmental injustices against Asians are under-researched and often under-discussed, it is nevertheless important to acknowledge the inequities they face. 

Mid-20th Century: Civil Rights Movement and the Modern American Conservation Movement

The modern conservation movement of the 1960’s and onwards was another important era for environmental policy. This era saw increasing attention and political energy centered around the public and ecological health effects of various human activities such as pollution and chemical use. Unlike the early conservation movement which predominantly focused on natural resource protection for aesthetic and recreational purposes, this movement also centered around less-apparent human and ecological health implications. 

In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring , a now-famous book exposing the dangerous environmental and human health effects of widespread pesticide usage, something once thought to be relatively harmless. Carson dedicates most of the book to discussing the environmental effects , such as bioaccumulation, and how pesticides cause significantly more wildlife deaths than those they intend to kill. She also examines cases of human poisoning from pesticides, such as a physician who experienced permanent nerve damage after a year of using a lawn pesticide. The public outcry following Silent Spring ’s publication served as one major catalyst for stronger pieces of environmental legislation, and a “Golden Age” of environmental policy followed. Many strong environmental laws, agencies, and policies were created between the 1960’s and 1970’s , including the Clean Air Act of 1963, the Clean Water Act of 1972, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The EPA was also established in December of 1970.

While this time period was marked by major environmental protection efforts, many policymakers had not yet understood that the burden of unhealthy environmental conditions were disproportionately placed onto marginalized communities. The country was still grappling with basic civil rights concerns such as segregation, disenfranchisement, and legalized racism. 

The civil rights movement of the 1960’s was notable for many reasons , such as securing voting rights for black individuals, prohibiting segregation, and increasing economic opportunities for African Americans. While it did not directly evolve into today’s environmental justice movement, the civil rights movement paved the way for environmental justice discourse by emphasizing the public health dangers faced by communities of color.

1980’s to the Present: Environmental Justice Movement

The 1980’s marked the beginning of the modern environmental justice movement. Coherent discourse of environmental justice began in the United States when Dr. Robert Bullard , now known as the “father of environmental justice” began studying how waste disposal sites were distributed across Houston, Texas. His initial beliefs that the placement of these sites were racially motivated were later confirmed. Bullard discovered that the vast majority of waste dumps and incinerators were located in black communities, despite African Americans only accounting for 25% of the city’s population. This prompted Bullard to become a leading academic and activist campaigner against environmental racism, helping to shape our understanding of environmental injustice and combat its many sources.

Environmental justice was not immediately recognized by policymakers and members of the general public; grassroots efforts by early environmental justice advocates led, and still lead, the Environmental Justice Movement we know today. Pioneered primarily by people of color who saw first-hand the public health dangers posed by poor environmental quality in their communities, they sought to find solutions that would ensure the health of themselves and their loved ones. 

One of the earliest and most important fights for environmental justice occurred in 1982 during a nonviolent sit-in against Warren County’s PCB Landfill. PCB stands for polychlorinated biphenyls, which are highly toxic organic compounds known to cause birth defects, skin ailments, cancer, and more. North Carolina planned to dispose of 120 million pounds of soil contaminated with PCB in Warren County, a region of the state housing predominantly poor, African American families. Concerned for the health of their community , hundreds of peaceful protesters fought against these plans. Although the protest was ultimately unsuccessful, it spurred the beginning of the Environmental Justice Movement and motivated citizens to examine other instances of environmental injustices across the country. 

Throughout the years, the Environmental Justice Movement has had a large number of notable successes, such as national policy changes and strong pieces of environmental legislation. Now a mainstream movement, many local, state, and federal governments actively work towards achieving its goals. The Environmental Justice Movement also constantly evolves, with today’s movement now tackling new types of environmental injustices and embracing the fight against climate change . Although a lack of environmental justice awareness caused generations of marginalized communities to suffer, many are hopeful the future will continue to bring even more positive change. 

• https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/environmental-justice-timeline
• https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Reports/TribalLands_ExtremeWeather_Report.ashx
• https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/rachel-carson-silent-spring.html
• https://www.ucc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/toxic-wastes-and-race-at-twenty-1987-2007.pdf
• https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/09/22/climate-change-environmental-justice/
• https://www.intermountainhistories.org/tours/show/30
• https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/environmentalism-and-the-legacy-of-colonialism

Current Policies and Challenges

The Current Policies and Challenges section will discuss existing environmental justice policies on a local, state, and national level, examine the ever-changing challenges posed by worsening wealth inequalities, climate change repercussions, and conflicting political party stances on environmental justice issues. 

Local Policies

Over the last few decades, elected officials on local, state, and federal levels have tried to tackle environmental injustices through legislation and policy changes. Policies on environmental justice are most varied at the local level, and have brought about significant change within their respective communities. 

Local policies and laws aimed at combating environmental justice issues are predominantly found in large coastal cities. Although these policies do exist in other areas of the United States, municipalities along the continental coastlines tend to have larger, more established environmental justice communities, as well as political environments that are more accepting of environmental justice reforms. Municipalities typically work towards environmental justice using six strategies :

• Bans: Banning specific land uses or industries is a direct and effective way to prevent harmful human activities that put humans and the environment at risk. For example, California’s Oakland region issued Ordinance 13385 in 2016 which stopped coal loading, unloading, storage, stockpiling, and handling within the city. This benefited environmental justice communities who would have faced the greatest environmental burdens and health repercussions from coal facilities. 
• Environmental Justice Policies and Programs: Establishing policies and instituting programs that affect local decision-making are another way municipalities further environmental justice. An example can be seen in San Francisco’s Environmental Justice Program, which includes a diverse set of steps and programs to promote environmental equity within the city. Those include the creation of parks and open-space areas, a Community Health Plan, and millions of dollars in community grants to nonprofit groups helping vulnerable individuals. 
• Review Processes: Before a proposed urban development project (e.g. buildings, roads, etc.) can be constructed and put into operation, review processes must first be carried out in order to assess its environmental impact. Municipalities aiming to reduce local environmental injustices often add an environmental justice component to the review process, ensuring that new developments do not disproportionately impact communities already burdened by poor environmental quality. For example, Cincinnati’s 2009 Environmental Justice Ordinance states that all proposed development projects within the city must first obtain an environmental justice permit from the Cincinnati Office of Environmental Quality before operation can begin.
• Proactive Planning: Anticipating future city development requires special foresight and planning. Some municipalities address environmental justice by creating comprehensive guides and goals that promote the development of cities in an environmentally equitable way. For example, Eugene, Oregon’s 2013 Envision Eugene Development Plan guides policies for land use planning that consider environmental justice goals.
• Targeting Existing Land Uses: Environmental injustices are commonly a result of past permitting of toxic facilities, decades of economic disinvestment, and poor enforcement of environmental standards. It is relatively easier to plan appropriately and prevent environmental injustices from occurring than to deal with existing land use issues. Sometimes, the environmental burdens faced by marginalized communities are so difficult to tackle through land use and zoning approaches that other methods become necessary. Instead, municipalities can utilize targeted mitigation efforts such as the phasing out of harmful land uses, ensuring stronger code enforcement, and creating buffer zones.
• Public Health Codes and Policies: Cities adopt and enforce codes that protect citizens from various forms of pollution. These forms of pollution include soil water, and air pollution, and can also include other forms such as noise pollution, odor pollution, and light pollution. One example of cities using health codes to advance environmental equity can be seen in San Francisco’s Health Code Article 38 . For new residential construction projects located in areas with poor air quality (commonly areas with large minority and low-income communities), this code protects public health by requiring the installation of stronger ventilation. 

Image 4.1 : This image from the Natural Resources Defense Council highlights the diversity found in local policies that work towards environmental justice. Although this image is not comprehensive of all local environmental justice policies within the United States, it shows the presence of bans, proactive planning, and other types of reform in various parts of the country. 

State Policies 

State-level involvement to address environmental injustice can take similarly diverse forms as those seen in local governments. Statewide bans on certain activities, strengthened review processes, establishments of environmental justice programs, and more, are commonly seen in states committed to furthering environmental justice. Some examples of states promoting environmental justice include:

• New York: New York’s 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is one of the world’s most ambitious climate laws, and a monumental environmental justice effort . As written in the law, actions aimed at reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions “should prioritize the safety and health of disadvantaged communities, control potential regressive impacts of future climate change mitigation and adaptation policies on these communities, and prioritize the allocation of public investments in these areas.” 
• Oregon: In 1997, Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality adopted an Environmental Justice Policy in order to ensure environmental equity within the state. Some of the principles outlined within the policy included contaminated land cleanups in marginalized communities, encouraging public feedback for the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, and supporting local environmental justice groups. 
• California : In 2016, California became the first state to require environmental justice considerations within general city plans . It also provides environmental justice communities with financial benefits taken from the state’s cap-and-trade program on greenhouse gases. 

Figure 4.2: This image, taken from a 2021 study on state trends in environmental justice legislation, details which states adopted, or are attempting to adopt, laws that promote environmental justice. Although less than half of all states have fully enacted environmental justice regulations and policies, many others have attempted to do so as well. 

National Policies

The federal response to environmental justice issues has not historically been as direct and ambitious as policies found on state and local levels. Environmental justice was first federally validated through Executive Order (EO) 12898 , which was signed by President Clinton in 1994. This order instructed federal agencies to identify environmental injustices, implement environmental justice strategies, and promote political participation in decision-making processes. Among EO 12898’s more notable contributions towards environmental equity was aligning the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with environmental justice goals. Although its initial creation in 1969 did not discuss environmental justice, NEPA now strongly encourages federal agencies to consider environmental justice implications before taking any major federal actions or activities. 

More recently, the Biden Administration has made strides towards a more environmentally equitable country that is unmatched by past presidencies. In order to protect communities with less political power, Biden has guided agencies to direct funding for environmental justice advancements, incorporated environmental justice goals into environmental reviews, and more. Biden has embraced environmental justice in a way no prior administration has, and many are hopeful that his steps will continue to reduce the environmental burdens experienced by the country’s vulnerable communities. 

Challenges: Climate Change

Climate change poses new environmental justice challenges that disproportionately impact already-vulnerable communities. Oftentimes, those who produce the fewest greenhouse gas emissions experience climate change’s greatest risks . Some of the new climate change-related challenges include:

• Higher wildfire risks
• Extreme high heat levels
• Greater heatwave frequency
• Greater hurricane severity
• Increased flooding severity
• Extreme low temperature levels
• Reduced agricultural yields
• Stronger droughts
• Rising sea levels
• Increasingly dangerous winter storms

Challenges: Wealth Inequality

The wealth divide among upper-income families and middle- and lower-income families has risen sharply over the last few decades. Increasingly severe income inequalities between different classes of Americans puts many citizens at an environmental disadvantage. As previously discussed, being low-income or homeless makes one more likely to experience poor environmental conditions such as polluted air, water, and soil. Additionally, as the wealth divide pushes more Americans further into poverty, it reduces their ability to access the decision-making process that shapes the environment in which they live.

Figure 4.3 : This image, taken from a 2020 Pew Research Center study, details the increasing wealth gap between American economic classes. Over the last few decades, it is evident that upper income families hold significantly more wealth than years prior, meanwhile lower and middle income families have seen little to no increase.

Challenges: Political Party Conflict

The United States is a hyperpolarized nation, with Democrats and Republicans often finding themselves at opposite ends of many conversations, including those involving environmental justice. According to a 2014 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, the last few decades have seen more Democrats align with consistently liberal beliefs, and Republicans with consistently conservative beliefs. Partisan animosity is also on the rise , with more Democrats and Republicans harboring highly negative opinions of the opposing party. This hyperpolarization is not only apparent among everyday American citizens; it is especially evident amongst the elected officials who shape the country’s laws and policies. 

Donald Trump, America’s 45th President, was known for his denial of climate change . His administration undermined efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions by withdrawing from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord , weakening greenhouse gas regulations, and aiming to revive the coal mining industry . Furthermore, the Trump Administration reversed environmental policies which greatly affected low-income communities. Some of these examples include:

• Restricting funding for the EPA, including its environmental justice programs
• Relaxing coal ash regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Because power plants that produce toxic coal ash are usually located in environmental justice communities, this decision had negative implications for vulnerable residents nearby. 
• Removing the ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide with harmful health impacts that primarily impact low-income farm workers.
• Cutting funding for environmental law enforcement, creating opportunities for environmental injustices to go unnoticed and unmitigated. 

In contrast, the current President Joe Biden expressed a strong commitment to delivering environmental justice early in his presidency. Within the first 90 days of being sworn into office, he:

• Supported legislation funding environmental justice programs  
• Signed Executive Order 14008 to address climate change and environmental justice issues
• Created two White House councils in order to address environmental justice implementation
• Appointed Michael Regan as head of the EPA, who aligned all EPA offices with environmental justice goals

As evidenced by the last two administrations’ stances on climate change and environmental justice, Democrats and Republicans generally do not share similar beliefs and priorities regarding these issues. Without bipartisan agreements and cooperation, progress towards environmental equity may become increasingly difficult to achieve. 

Image 4.4 – This image illustrates how the American public has become increasingly politically polarized over the last few decades. Beliefs shared by members of both parties became more divided, with Democrats expressing more consistently liberal opinions and Republicans expressing more consistently conservative opinions. 

• https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=scholarship
• https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/
• https://www.nrdc.org/stories/global-climate-change-what-you-need-know
• https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/local-policies-environmental-justice-national-scan-tishman-201902.pdf
• https://www.waste360.com/legislation-regulation/state-trends-environmental-justice-legislation

Policy Alternatives and Reforms

The Policy Alternatives and Reforms section discusses recent and ongoing efforts to reduce environmental inequities in the United States, and suggestions for how to adequately address environmental injustices moving forward. 

Recent and Ongoing Efforts Within the United States

As of September 2020, New Jersey is now home to one of the United States’ strongest pieces of legislation combating environmental injustices. In September 2020, Governor Phil Murphy signed Senate Bill 232 . This bill made it mandatory for certain facilities to undergo a comprehensive review of public health impacts on overburdened communities before an operational permit can be issued. Because this law ensures that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection will deny permits to facilities who disproportionately harm vulnerable communities, it is a large and historic step towards environmental equity within the state. 

In March 2021, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed a Climate Law aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting overburdened populations. This new legislation seeks to achieve Net Zero emissions by 2050, and mandates environmental impact assessments for any project that may affect air quality in vulnerable communities.

Six Georgia Representatives recently introduced House Bill 432 in February 2021. If approved, this law would be Georgia’s first-ever piece of legislation that directly addresses environmental inequity. The bill aims to create Georgia’s first Environmental Justice Commission, a group of 22 individuals from diverse backgrounds who analyze facilities across the state and their environmental justice impacts. The Commission would also publicize their findings, and guide legislative efforts it deems necessary to mitigate the burdens faced by disadvantaged communities.

New Jersey Senator Cory Booker recently reintroduced a Congressional bill looking to advance environmental justice goals on a federal level. In August 2021, Booker reintroduced the Environmental Justice Act, stating that “ clean air and clean water shouldn’t be luxuries for the privileged ”. The bill seeks to advance environmental justice by codifying and expanding EO 12898, requiring cumulative impact analyses under the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, Congressionally authorizing environmental justice grant programs, and more. 

More Potential Reforms

Combating Food Deserts/Food Insecurity

• Supporting community gardens and farmers markets for low-income individuals facing food insecurity
• Improving public transportation to provide rural and/or car-less individuals with better access to grocery stores
• Building affordable, government-owned grocery stores selling fresh produce in regions with food deserts

Preparing for Climate Change-Related Disasters

• Relocating low-income housing projects away from regions especially vulnerable to flooding
• Ensuring proper evacuation of environmental justice communities when faced with wildfire risks, hurricane warnings, etc. through improved public transportation and other evacuation assistance programs
• Providing housing for disadvantaged individuals facing severe property damage and/or loss following natural disasters

Monetary Support

• Provide financial compensation to residents facing health consequences associated with environmental injustices
• Reduce poverty and financially uplift disadvantaged communities
• Financially aid the relocation of vulnerable individuals and families living in environmentally harmful/risky regions (e.g. within a close proximity to waste incinerators)

Cleaning Contaminated Environments

• Prioritizing environmental cleanups within disadvantaged communities
• Repurposing abandoned/underutilized urban lots to create green spaces in disadvantaged communities

Valuing Marginalized Voices

• Mandating discussions with tribal governments/indigenous communities before making decisions that affect their lands

Spreading Awareness

• Encouraging schools to educate students on environmental justice

Reflection Questions

• How important is environmental inequity to you? Would you vote for a candidate who did not share your views on this issue?
• Can you name any instances where environmental injustices impacted your life/the life of someone you know?
• Are you satisfied with the level of attention and political energy environmental justice currently receives? Would you like to see more/less of it?
• Do you believe one answer to environmental injustice is increased government intervention and creating more environmental regulations? 
• Would you consider environmental justice to be in the top tier of your political priorities? 
• How has your opinion on the importance of environmental justice as a policy issue changed, if at all?

Make Your Voice Heard

Taking action to promote environmental equity does not have to be a daunting task. In fact, there are many ways one can stay involved and bring about meaningful change.

• The EPA’s environmental justice resource webpage : Includes a long list of websites you can visit to learn more essential information relating to environmental justice.
• The EPA’s EJSCREEN mapping tool is one you can use to explore environmental injustices within your community and beyond. 
• The EJAtlas is a tool you can use to research documented environmental justice issues around the world. 
• Educate others: Help spread the message of environmental justice by sharing this page and additional ACE resources, such as the environmental justice brief .
• Register to vote
• Find your House Representative 
• Find your Senators 
• Sample email: Dear [Their name], My name is [Your name] and I am a resident of [your district/state]. I am very concerned about ongoing environmental injustices and I want to see concrete steps to effectively work towards a more environmentally equitable future. The main reforms I would like to see are [list your main issues, for example: making environmental justice analyses mandatory, adequately informing marginalized community members of the environmental risks they face, etc.]. Thank you for your time, and I hope you will take the matter seriously.
• President Joe Biden
• Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey
• New Jersey Senator Cory Booker
• Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth
• California Representative Raul Ruiz  
• Contact the EPA about environmental justice concerns
• Report environmental violations that you or someone you know has encountered
• WE ACT for Environmental Justice
• Environmental Justice Foundation
• Climate Justice Alliance
• Indigenous Environmental Network
• Communities for a Better Environment

Appendix 1: Key Terms

1.1 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice can take on one of two meanings. First, it is commonly used to describe a field of study concerned with the disproportionate environmental burdens and risks experienced by disadvantaged communities. Researchers studying environmental justice often investigate how land use plans, pollution, emergency preparedness, climate change, and other environmental issues unfairly afflict the country’s most vulnerable individuals.

Second, environmental justice can also be used to describe the growing social movement aimed at reducing environmental inequities. The Environmental Justice Movement works to promote and achieve both social justice and environmental conservation goals. Advocates also fight for improvements in the social participation and political engagement of marginalized groups. Greater input from disadvantaged communities ensures that their voices are heard by policymakers, and allows them to shape the decisions that directly affect their lives.

1.2 Environmental Racism

Environmental racism is a concept that stems from the study of environmental justice. Environmental racism falls under the scope of environmental injustices, but is a more specific term that describes environmental inequities arising from one’s race. Dr. Robert Bullard, the father of environmental justice, defines environmental racism as “any policy, practice, or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color.”

1.3 Climate Change

Climate change describes the long-term changes to Earth’s wind, precipitation, temperature patterns. Current observable changes in the global climate are largely attributable to human activity, such as fossil fuel combustion and other greenhouse gas emissions. These gases enter the Earth’s atmosphere where they absorb heat and radiate it back towards Earth’s surface. Climate change contributes to rising global temperatures, stronger heat waves, drought, sea level rise, destructive hurricanes, and a host of other negative effects. Climate change is an environmental justice issue because its resulting environmental challenges will disproportionately impact already-vulnerable communities.

1.4 Reforms

Political reforms are attempts to improve systems, policies, institutions, or practices that are seen as unsatisfactory. Many environmental justice advocates fight for political reforms that reduce the environmental burdens and risks experienced by disadvantaged communities. 

1.5 Grassroots Movement

Grassroots movements are political campaigns organized by everyday people. Through the use of collective action, grassroots groups fight for political change on the local, state, federal, and even international level. Grassroots groups in support of environmental justice continuously work to improve government regulations, environmental policies, and political participation amongst underrepresented groups.

1.6 Colonialism Colonialism refers to the violent political and economic control of one country/territory over another. Colonialism aims to exploit dominated regions economically and occupy them with settlers. During colonialism, colonizers often force their religion, culture, language, and economic systems upon the colonized. Today, the United States’ legacy of colonialism continues to harm indigenous communities and the lands they inhabited for millennia

Share non-partisan research  driven by the next generation with your community

Environmental Justice Research: Contemporary Issues and Emerging Topics

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA. [email protected].
• 2 Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA. [email protected].
• 3 Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA. [email protected].
• PMID: 27809294
• PMCID: PMC5129282
• DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13111072

Environmental justice (EJ) research seeks to document and redress the disproportionate environmental burdens and benefits associated with social inequalities. Although its initial focus was on disparities in exposure to anthropogenic pollution, the scope of EJ research has expanded. In the context of intensifying social inequalities and environmental problems, there is a need to further strengthen the EJ research framework and diversify its application. This Special Issue of the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) incorporates 19 articles that broaden EJ research by considering emerging topics such as energy, food, drinking water, flooding, sustainability, and gender dynamics, including issues in Canada, the UK, and Eastern Europe. Additionally, the articles contribute to three research themes: (1) documenting connections between unjust environmental exposures and health impacts by examining unsafe infrastructure, substance use, and children's obesity and academic performance; (2) promoting and achieving EJ by implementing interventions to improve environmental knowledge and health, identifying avenues for sustainable community change, and incorporating EJ metrics in government programs; and (3) clarifying stakeholder perceptions of EJ issues to extend research beyond the documentation of unjust conditions and processes. Collectively, the articles highlight potentially compounding injustices and an array of approaches being employed to achieve EJ.

Keywords: air pollution; energy; environmental justice; flood; food; green space; health; social inequality; sustainability; water pollution.

Publication types

• Introductory Journal Article
• Environmental Exposure / adverse effects
• Environmental Exposure / economics
• Environmental Exposure / prevention & control*
• Environmental Health*
• Europe, Eastern
• Health Status Disparities*
• Social Justice*
• Socioeconomic Factors
• United Kingdom