Risk management provides a context for addressing environmental
health hazards. Critical to this approach is the identification
of key opportunities for participation. Ideally, affected
parties are involved early and throughout the decision process
through continuing dialogue. The reality, however, often
falls short of this ideal. The involvement of affected parties
is commonly limited to community members’ being informed
of the results collected and assessed by scientific experts
and decision makers. Increasingly, communities are provided
the opportunity to comment on documents or studies that are
presented to them in near-final form, but rarely is community
input used to frame and provide context at the outset of
the studies themselves. Here we explore some of the opportunities
and challenges of broader community participation within
the theoretical structure of the risk-management paradigm.
We begin by presenting a model of the analytic-deliberative
risk-management framework, with an emphasis on framing activities
in this structure, and then present three examples that illustrate
community approaches to framing exercises. Using examples
of activities by communities with concerns about seafood
safety, we explore a range of options for increasing community
involvement in shaping the scientific approaches used in
risk management.
Our examples come primarily from established connections
between University of Washington researchers and community
partners. These connections originated or were developed
more fully through the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS) Center for Ecogenetics and Environmental
Health’s town meeting, “Voices for Healthy Environments,
Healthy Communities,” held in Seattle, Washington in
September 2000. The NIEHS Center for Ecogenetics and Environmental
Health (CEEH) researchers and staff interacted with > 300
participants, representing > 40 community groups, tribal
nations, legislators, and agencies, in challenging discussions
of race, poverty, and pollution. This was one of 16 town
meetings supported by NIEHS across the country as part of
NIEHS’s commitment to developing a research agenda
responsive to community needs (O’Fallon et al. 2003).
The case studies presented here provide lessons for expanding
community participation in designing environmental health
risk research questions (framing) under various circumstances
including the rationale for community action, differences
in resources, and involvement of scientific experts.
Community Involvement in Analytic-Deliberative Risk-Management
Dialogue
Involving affected parties at all major phases of the risk
decision process is an important component of nearly all
risk-management paradigms (National Research Council 1996,
2000a). Affected parties should be allowed to express their
own needs and help shape objectives for risk management.
However, involvement is challenging. One barrier to effective
participation is not involving affected parties early enough
in the process. This is often seen when fish contamination
problems are addressed and when fish advisories are issued
(Jardine 2003). Other barriers include information failing
to reach communities, the lack of awareness of some environmental
health issues, and the varying degrees of scientific understanding.
Experience, skills, scientific training, and local knowledge
and values can vary considerably among participants working
on a decision process, and agencies may not have access to
important local knowledge, may not understand what affected
parties care about, or may not be aware of behaviors that
affect exposure to contamination. Researchers need help with
all these issues to appropriately address risk concerns.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has repeatedly called
for early, active, continuous, and transparent community
involvement in risk-influenced activities (National Research
Council 1996, 2000a, 2000b). Understanding Risk: Informing
Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Research
Council 1996) offers a detailed framework for improving complex
decision processes. It describes an analytic-deliberative
process, in which theories, results, and scientific analyses
inform the deliberative processes used to discuss and determine
the appropriate course of action. At the same time, the deliberative
processes frame the scientific analyses. During the many
decision phases, the participants (public officials, scientists,
and interested/affected parties) interact and participate
in the analysis and deliberation.
Figure 1. Model of the analytic-deliberative
risk process adapted from Drew et al. (2003) and the
National Research Council (1996). |
To facilitate our implementation of the NAS framework,
we adapted the original NAS framework to specifically highlight
the interplay among the analytic-deliberative processes (Figure
1; Drew et al. 2003; National Research Council 1996). The
trio of participants (affected parties, technical specialists,
and decision makers) is fundamental to the process, and each
group should participate in all phases. Moreover, individuals
may participate as members of more than one group, depending
on training, experience, and their role in the decision process.
Little attention has been paid to the information needs inherent
to the analytic-deliberative process (Drew et al. 2004).
Generally, more attention has been given to the informing
aspects than to the framing aspects, and more tools have
been developed to support the analytic aspects of the processes
than the deliberative aspects. As a consequence, participation
in the framing process, especially by affected parties, is
often limited.
Sometimes involvement activities are too focused on one-way
information flow: from those who are making decisions (such
as government agencies) to those who are being informed.
Most involvement paradigms call for two-way information flow,
but they offer few specific recommendations for facilitating
this, particularly for increasing participation in designing
research questions (Drew et al., in press). Various public
participation models and tools offer opportunities to inform,
consult, involve, collaborate with, and empower affected/interested
parties [International Association for Public Participation
(IAP2) 2000; Renn et al. 1995].
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) provides
a tool for expanding community involvement in research projects
and potentially for increasing participation by affected
community members (O’Fallon and Dearry 2002). The NIEHS
defines CBPR as a methodology that promotes active community
involvement in the processes that shape research and intervention
strategies and that promotes involvement in the conduct of
research studies. The CBPR approach is designed to apply
more generally to environmental health issues of concern,
to ensure meaningful involvement by community members.
These CBPR principles of early and active community engagement
also apply to increasing community involvement in all aspects
of the analytic-deliberative risk dialogue. An advantage
of considering environmental health issues in a risk context
is that risk-management science is directed toward providing
information for decision making and dealing with uncertainties
(Faustman and Omenn 2001; Morgan and Henrion 1990). The principles
of CBPR can be achieved more easily when the analytic-deliberative
approach is applied in its ideal form (i.e., when all interested
and affected parties are involved in informing and framing
processes). Using example case studies, we discuss options
for moving beyond processes that simply inform affected communities
to processes that involve communities in framing relevant
scientific questions.
Informing makes information from analytic processes (often
scientific or research) accessible to all parties, so community
members may more fully participate in deliberative (risk-management)
discussions. In the context of fish contamination issues,
community involvement is often limited to informing activities.
There is a growing literature describing, evaluating, and
improving these activities, most related to the issuance
of fish advisories (Burger et al. 2003; Connelly and Knuth
1998; Jardine 2003; Knuth et al. 2003; Shubat et al. 1996).
A common theme from many of these studies is the need for
two-way communication and earlier involvement by communities.
The analytic-deliberative dialogue (Figure 1) is an iterative
process and can be flexible as new information becomes available
and new participants join the process.
Issuing fish advisories is often not an iterative process,
however. Once advisories are issued, the public is wary of
reusing a fishing resource that once was declared unsuitable
(Jardine 2003). The issuance of advisories tends to be a
top-down process, as decisions about acceptable risks and
alternatives are often made without including affected parties.
Such top-down processes may not be appropriate for all consumption
and cultural groups [Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
(CRITFC) 1994; Sechena et al. 1999; Shubat et al. 1996; Suquamish
Tribe 2000; Toy et al. 1996]. This is reflected in the increasing
number of fish advisory evaluations calling for early involvement
(Jardine 2003). In more advanced models, information flow
is two-way but is still limited to informing activities such
as risk communication about fish contamination (Burger et
al. 2003; Jardine 2003; Knuth et al. 2003). This might include
community partners developing fish advisories (informing)
without being involved in the scientific analysis used to
shape the advisory (framing) (Figure 1). Without real meaningful
involvement during the framing steps, informing processes
will not be as significant to affected communities.
Framing allows concerns that arise through deliberative
processes to shape analyses (Figure 1). This presents the
potential for major expansion of community involvement in
the risk-management process. In particular, there are many
such possibilities in risk management of contaminated fishing
resources.
As noted previously, efforts in framing activities have
been limited (Jardine 2003; Knuth et al. 2003). Reasons for
this can include a lack of communication among community
groups, technical specialists, and decision makers, leading
to nontransparent decision processes (Drew et al. 2004, in
press). In other words, how do researchers and decision makers
select a research agenda or a decision process after environmental
hazards or issues are recognized? Another reason affected
parties are not involved in framing research more often is
that there are limited funds dedicated to support involvement
up front.
There are several benefits of expanding participation in
framing research questions for all parties involved in the
analytic-deliberative dialogue. Community participation may
result in the design of more effective analyses (Bierle 2002;
Drew et al., in press; Israel et al. 2001). This participation
may also promote research addressing community needs, community
acceptance of the processes, understanding of environmental
health risks, and informed behavior changes (Jardine 2003).
Moreover, community involvement in framing may increase overall
dialogue and thereby improve informing processes essential
to risk management.
In our experience, more effort has been focused on informing
than on framing risk questions and risk management activities
(Drew et al. 2004, in press; Judd et al. 2003b; Polifka and
Faustman 2002). Our objective here is to report several community
framing activities that have shaped how analytical processes
(research) will be carried out to assess the safety of fish
consumption. By exploring similarities and differences across
the three examples, we hope to present a range of framing
approaches that may also be appropriate for other groups.
Case Studies of Communities Involved in Framing
We have had the privilege of collaborating with several
dynamic communities that are proactively addressing their
environmental health concerns. Here we highlight their efforts
in framing aspects of the analytic-deliberative risk-management
process. Common themes across these examples, including challenges
and benefits, are explored using a case-study approach (Yin
1994). These descriptive case studies document collaboration
between university researchers and community, tribal, and
agency partners. The three case studies describe interactions
with Marine Resources for Future Generations, the Swinomish
Indian Tribal Community, and the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe.
These interactions have been through participation on advisory
boards, and the importance of relationship building has been
key. All three groups are located in Washington State, and
the importance of fish and seafood in each is high. Recent
seafood consumption surveys indicate that average tribal
and Asian and Pacific Islander (API) community members consume
3-10 times the amount of fish and shellfish of average U.S.
consumers [Sechena et al. 1999; Suquamish Tribe 2000; Toy
et al. 1996; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1997a].
High-end tribal consumers may eat 20 times the amount of
average U.S. consumers (Suquamish Tribe 2000; U.S. EPA 1997a).
In addition, sources and types of fish and shellfish consumed
differ from community to community (Judd et al. 2004). Traditional
diets and reliance on subsistence fishing/harvesting contribute
to the higher consumption rates of tribal and API community
members.
Each of these groups has concerns about specific contaminants
(e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls, biotoxins, pesticides,
and methylmercury) in seafood they eat regularly. Our previous
studies indicated that the specific collection, preparation,
and consumption practices of tribes and API communities may
place them at greater exposure to some contaminants. Additionally,
our studies have shown that monitoring practices by some
regulatory agencies may not be sufficient to evaluate or
protect these vulnerable groups from the potential health
risks (Judd et al. 2003a,b).
Each community has its own story of how their efforts to
address potential health risks from consuming contaminated
seafood began and how they eventually became active in framing
activities.
Marine Resources for Future Generations. The
Marine Resources for Future Generations (MRFFG) program began
in 1997 in Pierce County, Washington. The initial mission
of the group was to ensure the safe and wise use of seafood
resources and compliance with state regulations, such as
licensing and appropriate shellfish collection, by API communities
in the county. The group includes two social service organizations:
the Korean Women’s Association (KWA), which serves
the Korean, Samoan, and Filipino communities, and the Indochinese
Cultural and Service Center (ICSC), which serves the Vietnamese,
Cambodian, and Laotian communities. Government agencies and
nongovernmental partners provide support and educational
resources and make MRFFG a strong coalition. The connection
with the University of Washington (UW) was made at the NIEHS
town meeting during a seafood safety breakout session, and
UW staff has since attended the monthly meetings, provided
technical advice, and assisted in MRFFG projects.
For many API communities, seafood is an important part
of both nutrition and cultural traditions, making seafood
safety a very pressing matter. The Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was concerned that their usual
methods of education (multilingual brochures and signs) were
not reaching many API community members. The MRFFG group
began when KWA and ICSC joined with WDFW to address illegal
harvesting issues, including shellfish collection from closed
and contaminated beaches. Other partners soon joined, and
over the years the group’s efforts have expanded to
include many other issues including non-point-source pollution,
mercury in fish, and invasive species. An initial condition
for participating agencies and organizations is a long-term
commitment, not just a pilot project effort. This has been
key to the success of the group that has held monthly meetings
for the last 7 years, even as grant support has waxed and
waned.
Early on, MRFFG’s educational outreach found that
the sources of seafood sold at local markets were unknown.
This was an important issue for the group to address. As
community members began to understand that some beaches were
not safe for harvesting shellfish, they wanted to know the
source of the seafood they purchased in markets. At the same
time, the group was concerned that education about local
contamination had led people to believe that seafood from
anywhere else (besides local contaminated beaches) would
be cleaner. MRFFG launched its own effort to investigate
the sources of local seafood. This project is an excellent
example of community-driven framing of problems in the risk-management
process because these efforts focused on developing and pursuing
scientific questions to better understand potential health
risks.
The main goal of the project was to talk with local vendors
and determine the sources of their seafood. If the seafood
was local, they wanted to know specifically which beach it
was from and whether it was legally harvested, as well as
the sources of imported seafood. Another goal of the project
was to provide education about the health importance of regulations
for collection and sale of seafood to vendors. The businesses
were all within API communities, and MRFFG wanted to support
these businesses by providing them with information to help
ensure community health, which would ultimately also benefit
retailers. MRFFG’s multilingual youth administered
the surveys in a nonthreatening manner, collecting information,
not enforcing regulations.
Fourteen youth participated and visited 10 stores in Tacoma
and Seattle, serving mostly Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian,
Samoan, and Filipino community members. Results indicated
that the stores were importing from overseas most of the
fish they sold, and this choice was driven by both customer
and owner preferences. Seventy percent were aware of health
dangers related to seafood, but at least 20% of the stores
had no awareness of health dangers associated with shellfish
contamination or illegal harvesting. MRFFG concluded that
they needed to increase awareness of seafood safety issues
to ensure community health. This process began with providing
literature from the WDFW and the Washington Department of
Health. Thus, this framing and analysis project fed into
an informing process in an iterative way and expanded community
involvement.
MRFFG continues educational efforts with local shopkeepers
to ensure the safety of the seafood they sell. They have
also begun investigation and education efforts with stores
about the environmental dangers of importing invasive species.
These community-driven efforts have promoted community health
while encouraging community businesses. Outside groups, even
those fluent in Asian languages, could not have performed
this investigation and education process as effectively as
the youth because the business owners might have perceived
a threat (in the form of an enforcement action), and they
might not have provided information.
Funding for MRFFG projects, such as this one, have come
from a variety of sources, including U.S. EPA headquarters
and Region 10, regional foundations, the Puget Sound Water
Quality Action Team, the Russell Family Foundation, and several
MRFFG member organizations. The group has also successfully
obtained funds through competitive processes geared primarily
toward community organizations. Despite funding being an
annual uncertainty, MRFFG has effectively leveraged their
resources to address community seafood safety concerns. The
group’s longevity rests in the continued commitment
of its members that extends beyond the funding period of
one grant or project. The efforts of MRFFG also demonstrate
that community groups with limited resources can engage in
framing activities that empower them to make more educated
decisions about managing environmental health risks.
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe. The Shoalwater
Bay Indian Tribe is concerned about the potential impacts
of environmental quality on their health for several reasons.
The Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation (SBIR) is located on
Willapa Bay, in the most isolated rural area of northern
Pacific County in Washington State. The tribal community
includes just 237 people (Shukovsky 2002). Fish and seafood
are major dietary components for the Shoalwater; these resources
have very important traditional and spiritual roles in tribal
communities (CRITFC 1994; Suquamish Tribe 2000; Toy et al.
1996). Although a small tribe, the Shoalwater must deal with
a large variety of environmental issues. One of the biggest
of these is the widespread commercial use of pesticides on
lands surrounding the reservation. Diazinon has been sprayed
over the nearby cranberry bogs to kill fire worms, which
destroy the plants. Railroad ties, heavily treated with a
fungicide to prevent rotting, are situated throughout the
bogs. The pesticide carbaryl is applied to the many oyster
beds around Shoalwater Bay (and Willapa Bay, a larger connected
body of water) in an effort to retard ghost shrimp populations.
The tideflats are also sprayed routinely with glyphosate
to control Spartina,a destructive weed. Other
environmental concerns include the presence of fecal coliform
and marine biotoxins. Harmful algal blooms that release biotoxins,
such as saxitoxin and domoic acid, have led to several recent
beach closures for shellfish harvesting [Commission on Asian
Pacific American Affairs (CAPAA) 2004; Washington Department
of Health (WADOH) 2004]. Additionally, many septic systems
on or adjacent to the reservation are failing (Laundry Alternative
2004; Puget Sound Action Team 2004). All of these factors
may affect shellfish quality.
In the mid-1990s, the U.S. EPA conducted several environmental
assessments (water, air and soil quality) in the region (U.S.
EPA 1997b). These investigations, made in response to a high
prenatal and neonatal mortality rate within the Shoalwater
Tribal community, have been limited in scope. The final report
recommended further testing at additional sample sites to
provide more complete information (U.S. EPA 1997b).
In September 2000, Shoalwater leaders attended the CEEH’s
town meeting and voiced their concerns to NIEHS Director
Kenneth Olden. As a result of this meeting, the NIEHS provided
support to enable the CEEH’s Community Outreach and
Education Program (COEP) and the Shoalwater’s Environmental
Division to work together. This effort represents one of
many projects implemented by Shoalwater’s Environmental
Division, most of which are administered and managed internally.
Their new on-site environmental laboratory has increased
the ability of the tribe to engage in many framing and analytical
activities independently to address their environmental health
risk concerns. Additionally, to holistically address health
concerns on the reservation, the Shoalwater constructed a
new health clinic and have developed intensive prenatal care
and well-baby programs.
The Shoalwater, in collaboration with COEP and the Institute
for Risk Analysis and Risk Communication (IRARC), has used
NIEHS support to engage in framing tribal environmental concerns.
The Shoalwater developed a seafood consumption survey tool
and a shellfish quality management plan. Both the shellfish
plan and the survey tool were included in a proposal submitted
to the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) that has
since received funding. The ANA project described monitoring
subsistence food species that are consumed by tribal members
for environmental contaminants. This approach was favored
by most tribal members, who were surveyed using a pilot seafood-consumption
survey tool. The results will be used to create a prioritized
list of the species to be tested for contaminants. The results
of these tests will be incorporated into the tribal management
plan to assess the shellfish quality in Willapa Bay. The
Shoalwater Tribe is also awaiting response on other research
proposals submitted to U.S. EPA and NIEHS. These include
studies to look at seafood contamination in the context of
other dietary risk factors and, when funded, will use technical
contacts at the University of Washington.
The Shoalwater have faced many difficulties, but they have
maximized their resources to address their concerns. Proposal
development can be a daunting task, particularly for communities
with many competing priorities and limited technical, material,
and human resources. The Shoalwater Tribe has successfully
developed competitive proposals that will enable them to
more fully frame and analyze their environmental health risk
concerns.
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. The Swinomish
Tribe’s research project, Bioaccumulative Toxics in
Native American Shellfish (BTNAS), is another example of
a tribal community framing their own questions. The Swinomish
Reservation is located on the shores of central Puget Sound
and is home to 1,000 Native Americans, of whom 700 are enrolled
Swinomish members. Swinomish Tribe members are concerned
about environmental contamination threatening their traditional
use of resources, particularly shellfish. There are numerous
potential sources of contamination within a mile radius of
the reservation, including petrochemical and industrial facilities,
landfills, municipal sewer outfalls, two marinas, two boatyards,
log storage facilities, and agricultural land treated with
pesticides and fertilizers. The Swinomish Tribe has initiated
investigation into the potential contamination of water,
sediments, and shellfish. The purpose of the project is to
ensure safety and promote continuation of healthy, traditional
lifestyles and/or to begin proactively addressing cleanup
and mitigation of contaminated sources. The Swinomish Tribe
requested that a screening study of contaminants be performed
in Padilla and Fidalgo Bays by the Washington State Department
of Ecology. The initial study indicated the presence of numerous
persistent pollutants, including arsenic and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDFs) (Johnson et al. 1997). Later studies
indicated the need for additional sampling to understand
the magnitude and the health implications of the contamination
(Johnson 1999, 2000).
Shellfish contamination represents one of a number of threats
to the Swinomish maintaining their traditional lifestyle.
It is extremely important to the Swinomish that the effort
to investigate the contamination and potential health risks
be performed by the Swinomish Tribe. The Swinomish have significant
internal resources, including several environmental scientists
with advanced degrees, an on-site chemistry lab, and an ongoing
shellfish monitoring program funded by the U.S. EPA and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), primarily for paralytic shellfish
monitoring. Moreover, this is an issue of sovereignty. The
Swinomish Tribe prefers to control how such a study is conducted
to ensure that it addresses (frames) the Swinomish Tribe’s
environmental health concerns and that the information gathered
is used and interpreted by the Swinomish Tribe.
In summer of 2000, the Swinomish Planning Office and their
intern (funded by the Environmental Careers Organization)
developed the BTNAS proposal. Although the Swinomish Tribe
possessed the infrastructure required to develop an in-depth
environmental sampling, analysis, risk management, and education
plan with a significant cultural component, they were unfamiliar
with the complexities of a federal grant application. The
Swinomish sought help with this technical challenge at CEEH.
Additionally, at the NIEHS town meeting, the Swinomish Tribe
submitted their concerns related to the difficulties of the
grant proposal procedure for communities unfamiliar with
the federal funding process. Providing feedback to agencies
that clearly have a mandate and desire for community-based
research should make it easier for communities with the capacity
to receive grants directly.
With final approval from the Swinomish Tribe’s governing
council, the grant was submitted and received favorably by
the NIEHS, but was not funded. It was, however, recommended
to the U.S. EPA, and in 2002, the Swinomish Tribe was awarded
the largest-ever U.S. EPA research grant to a tribal nation.
The Swinomish Tribal Planning Office had the core staff and
resources to take on a project of this magnitude, in addition
to many other ongoing water quality projects. The project
necessitated hiring new staff for the many new responsibilities
and activities. Currently, IRARC and COEP researchers act
as advisors to the BTNAS project and have assisted and/or
acted as principal investigators for subsequent grant applications.
So far the BTNAS project has collected two seasons of field
samples, and sample analysis is in progress. The planning
office staff has been annually updating the Swinomish General
Council on the progress of the BTNAS project. The Swinomish
Annual Report and the free monthly tribal newsletter, Kee-yoks,
provide information to tribal members about BTNAS project
developments. Additionally, the Swinomish environmental education
program works in the public schools, providing outreach and
education on local environmental health issues.
More recently, the Swinomish organized a meeting of environmental
scientists from several nearby tribes to discuss common concerns,
upcoming funding opportunities, and approaches for sharing
resources. This meeting was significant in that it was organized
by the tribes, for the tribes. The BTNAS project has also
been presented at several scientific meetings.
The BTNAS project is another good example of a community
framing their own environmental health questions. To pursue
the specific questions of the Swinomish Tribe about the condition
of the local environment and safe consumption of shellfish,
a technical approach is needed. The Swinomish Tribe has the
resources to develop a plan, obtain funding, and pursue these
questions. Because the Swinomish Tribe developed the plan,
it addresses their needs while maintaining tribal sovereignty
through tribal control of research activities, findings,
and interpretation. The Swinomish Tribe Planning Office is
in an optimal position to inform the tribal community about
the project and incorporate community feedback for framing
future activities. The ongoing activities illustrate how
the Swinomish Tribe is using information from this research
to evaluate their risks from shellfish exposure.
Summary of Community Experiences with Framing Activities
A challenge for researchers is determining how to work
with communities to understand how their questions are framed
and how to incorporate this process in their research programs.
This challenge has been identified in previous work, such
as involving communities in risk-management processes related
to cleanup and transportation of nuclear waste (Drew et al.
2003, in press). In that case and the case examples presented
here, the challenges are unique to each situation and require
significant time investments and resources for the communities
and the collaborators. This has also been identified through
numerous CBPR projects (O’Fallon and Dearry 2001, 2002;
O’Fallon et al. 2003; Seifer 2000; Thompson et al.
2001). The examples of efforts by MRFFG, the Swinomish Tribe,
and the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe illustrate a range of
opportunities for communities in framing activities. Each
community had different issues and approaches, including
who was involved, how the effort was financed, and the types
of outcomes. The various outcomes are summarized in Table
1, and the many common themes that the groups shared are
described in Appendix 1.
Table
1
|
Appendix 1
|
The MRFFG project presents a grass-roots approach to addressing
community problems. After embarking on an educational effort
(informing) to reduce community exposures to contaminants
in locally collected shellfish, the group recognized the
importance of assuring the safety of seafood at local markets.
This work grew out of their original mission, which had
not included investigatory work. However, as the group framed
the question of local markets’ sources of seafood,
they found that they lacked information. Undaunted, they
took the initiative and pursued the information themselves
(Table 1). This was done primarily by leveraging limited
funds from government and private sources. MRFFG drew on
expertise and support from all its members: community youth,
elders, county and federal agencies, and nonprofit and
academic partners. This example demonstrates that groups
that do not
typically perform scientific investigations can perform
framing activities and that framing and analysis can be
done with
limited resources if the group has a strong commitment
to addressing the question. By internally carrying out
the study,
the community has ownership of the activity and can better
facilitate community education and dialogue about the results.
Developing and pursuing these questions internally fosters
community interest, support, and positive action to address
problems.
The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe’s effort to develop
a proposal to investigate contaminated shellfish represents
a very different approach that began with support from government
agencies (NIEHS) and collaboration between their own scientists
and outside scientific experts. The Tribe engages in many
research efforts to ensure a healthy community. In this particular
example, the Tribe investigated potential shellfish contamination
in collaboration with outside researchers (Table 1). This
preliminary investigation, itself a framing exercise, was
used in several subsequent research proposals, some that
have been funded and some that are pending. Thus, the community
was able to obtain support, both financial and technical,
specific for its framing efforts. This has led to the development
of successful research proposals specific to the Tribe’s
questions and concerns.
The Swinomish Tribe has had an ongoing shellfish-monitoring
program, but this was not adequate to address concerns about
bioaccumulative toxicants in shellfish. The Swinomish Tribe
obtained funding and is currently engaged in research including
iterative framing of questions about shellfish contamination
(Table 1). It has been paramount for the Swinomish to have
tribal autonomy over the scientific questions asked, project
execution, data collection, and data interpretation. The
information collected will be used to evaluate current and
future risks from shellfish exposures. The Tribe received
some help from academic researchers with the grant application
process, in addition to technical and outreach expertise.
Thus, the examples presented here demonstrate a range of
possibilities in terms of the questions asked, the way they
were formulated and pursued, how experts were involved, and
how they were funded. Some projects leveraged limited funds
from a variety of sources to pursue their concerns, and some
obtained resources specifically for framing questions, which
they then used for research and/or in developing more complete
proposals. Tribes are in a unique situation with regard to
applying for funding in that they, as sovereign nations,
often have more developed infrastructures than many community
groups. They are also eligible for some tribal-funding sources
(e.g., BIA and U.S. EPA) that cannot be pursued by other
communities.
Despite many differences in their problems and approaches,
many common themes emerged from the experiences of these
communities (Appendix 1). Some common benefits of framing
that are shared across the groups include research that better
meets community needs and increased community ownership.
These examples also show how framing can help build internal
knowledge and capacity. For all the groups, environmental
issues are among many competing issues, and the process of
framing may be outside the usual scope of the group’s
activities. Finally, trust and connections beyond the community
may also be needed, and the process of framing may develop
as many or more questions than it addresses. These commonalities
highlight benefits and challenges that may be part of framing
by other communities and can be helpful in determining the
potential utility of the process and in anticipating some
of its difficulties.
This article has presented three case studies of successful
community action in framing scientific analyses of environmental
health risks. We used the NRC’s analytic-deliberative
process to think about the different components needed for
CBPR in a risk context. The analytic-deliberative process
prompts us to pay special attention to roles communities
can play in both framing research questions and in informing
and educating all parties involved in the risk process. Framing
is an integral part of the analytic-deliberative risk process
and can open important opportunities for two-way dialogue
and communication among researchers and community/tribal
partners. Few accounts in the literature have shown how this
happens and why. We have presented three case studies related
to seafood safety that illustrate how the framing process
can work. The efforts of these case study groups and their
partners have opened opportunities and empowered them to
address their environmental health risk concerns.
The case studies present a range of possibilities for communities
to be involved in framing activities. These projects span
different environmental problems with communities using a
variety of approaches, including how (or if) outside experts
were involved and how the effort was funded. There were elements
of framing and informing in each of the examples, demonstrating
the interconnectedness and importance of both. Many common
themes from their experiences emerged, including how framing
helped in capacity building, how they balanced competing
concerns, and how the communities benefited. However, given
the pressure to deliver maximum production for grant dollars
spent, there is little incentive for researchers and agency
staff to engage in activities that are not mandated, may
not be recognized as results, and are likely to be time and
resource intensive. Increasing community and tribal participation
through framing and CBPR requires significant investments
of time and resources by all the collaborators. Given the
value of this broader involvement, funding agencies should
recognize, encourage, and even mandate community involvement
to specifically frame and address environmental health risk
issues. This research direction will ultimately lead to more
relevant and realistic environmental health risk management
solutions.