Framing Environmental Health Decision-Making: The Struggle over Cumulative Impacts Policy
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Cumulative Risk Policy Context
1.2. Cumulative Impacts in Maryland
1.3. Social Explanation for Environmental Controversies and Policy Problems
2. Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. The Politics of Evidence: “The Science Isn’t Quite There Yet.”
The term cumulative impacts refer to the concept that individuals are exposed to a number of chemical and non-chemical stressors through the course of a day and a lifetime. As you breathe, you may be inhaling large amounts of particulate matter, pesticides, and ozone in addition to the oxygen you need to function. Those are the chemical stressors. You may also be dealing with financial stress, or difficulty with a pre-existing health condition, which also affects your ability to respond to additional stressors you may face. Those are the non-chemical stressors (Participant, Environmental Nonprofit Representative, oral testimony for SB0693).
There was some disagreement on the science and methodologies. We didn’t have a consistent agreed approach on how we’re measuring things, and the science behind it, and the real impact the legislation would actually have. If we go and do this, are we going to see the desired impacts that this legislation is claiming that it will help? (Participant, Business Representative)
- Bill opponents framed the absence of a standardized risk assessment approach as a lack of scientific evidence and measurement tools. They argued that insufficient data and analytical frameworks left them without the means to adequately make policy decisions on cumulative impacts, “I think that it’s difficult to write good legislation in the absence of good data and good techniques and methodology” (Participant, State Government Official).
There is a very good science on cumulative exposures and the impacts of cumulative exposures. What’s missing is really understanding what the magnitude of that impact...how to measure the impacts, and some of the things that are really complicated are how we can figure out for people who have this lifetime of exposures as well as socioeconomic stress, how to quantify all of that in a way that makes it possible to do what the bill is seeking to do (Participant, State Government Official, oral testimony for SB0693).
3.2. The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice: “I Understand Clean Air, Clean Water, But We’ve Gotta Have Jobs”
I’m here because I see in my own community and the communities surrounding it a lack of environmental justice. I see new industry piled upon existing industry. I see new pollution in communities that are already overburdened. Tractor-trailers are constantly present on residential streets of our neighborhoods. They wake us in the morning, and they interrupt our sleep at night. They rumble past our houses, community center, and our new high school. They ruin our roads, and they spew pollution into our air. But this is not about the technical issues of cumulative impacts. It’s not even about diesel truck traffic per se. What it is about is public health and fairness. It’s about giving underserved communities a voice (Participant, Community Activist and member of the MDE Cumulative Impacts Workgroup, oral testimony for SB0398).
- The focus for bill proponents was on elevating distinctive community voices whenever possible in the policy making process. A community activist stated at the first hearing for the REDUCE Act, “Environmental justice calls for fair treatment, having a seat in the room within the decision making process” (Participant, Community-Based Organization Representative, oral testimony for HB0820). Several participants noted that communities often became aware of permit decisions only after they occurred:
That was one of the things we tried to do, and that bill figured out a trigger much earlier in the process for community outreach and engagement so communities can come to the table (Participant, Environmental Nonprofit Regional Director).
There’s poverty levels, and that’s where I think with cumulative impacts we struggle because there’s so many factors that contribute to people’s health. It’s whether you exercise, it’s what your diet is, it’s what your levels of stress are, it’s whether you smoke, your behavioral factors and things like that. And then on top of it you add some sort of environmental pollution…environmental pollution just icing on the cake to all these other things (Participant, State Government Official).
The lack of standards, if you look at the legislation, there’s no standards or criteria that [unclear] what this impact analysis would include. We have a lot of concerns about how long that type of analysis might take, what types of twists and turns it would take, the way it would undermine the predictability of going through the permit process which is very specific in nature, has very specific criteria directed at protecting the resource that’s being impacted or that is a part of the development process (Participant, Trade Association Representative, oral testimony for HB0820).
- Calls for increased community participation in the decision-making process were portrayed as redundant and burdensome on existing regulatory procedures:
There needs to be an opportunity for community input, that’s a legitimate issue, you’re going to build a brick factory in my backyard I ought to have an opportunity to at least know something about that, and voice my opposition if you’re going to discharge your affluent into my backyard. Okay, I understand that, but how many bites of the apple should those groups have an opportunity to take? Our point of view is too many opportunities, because every time you inject a lawsuit, that permitting process just stretches out and stretches out. That is a tactic of the environmental groups, and I’m not saying they’re bad human beings, but that’s a tactic of the environmental groups. I don’t think...we don’t think it serves the public as well as a more efficient process could (Participant, Trade Association Representative).
- Bill opponents also depicted the shift towards promoting community input and involvement as moving focus away from more “scientific” and “evidence-based” factors related to cumulative impacts such as environmental and health risks. A participant noted, “I think it’s an environmental justice bill, making communities that are nearby to these facilities much more aware of what’s coming in, but it doesn’t allow MDE to prevent these permits from being issued. It avoids those complex modeling and evidence and data that you had cited for cumulative impacts, so I don’t think this is a cumulative impacts bill” (Participant, State Legislator, oral testimony for HB0820). Throughout the policy process, bill proponents and opponents’ frames remained incompatible in the translation of social justice principles into public policy.
3.3. The Dilemma of Authority: “Unfortunately Our State Agencies Are Not Doing Enough to Work Together”
The [health] department is in opposition to the bill. The primary concern here is that this is a very complicated and new undertaking for the department. It’s a process that might involve some 30–50, we’re estimating, permit reviews a year. Part of the challenge is we [health department] don’t live in the air permitting business, we live in the health business. It’s not something the department has previously done and it would require a fair amount of work (Participant, Stage Government Official, oral testimony for HB0987).
- State environmental agency staff reinforced this framing by stating that they only have the capacity and authority to follow current federal EPA guidelines:
We don’t make that public health decision directly, but the feds have already done that. In none of our air permitting requirements do we look at direct impacts to public health...we review the concentration of those emissions. It’s not cumulative, just that particular one source, and gauge it against set criteria that federal toxicologists have developed for worker safety levels. We divide by 100 to make sure that there’s a threshold, a safety factor for kids and for sensitive populations. If with that math you’re below that federal level, then you pass. That’s about the only public health link we have to what we do (Participant, State Government Official).
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Centers for Disease Control. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Updated Tables; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
- Bullard, R.D.; Mohai, P.; Saha, R.; Wright, B. Toxic Wastes and Race and Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty; United Church of Christ: Cleveland, OH, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Morello-Frosch, R.; Zuk, M.; Jerrett, M.; Shamasunder, B.; Kyle, A.D. Understanding the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental health: Implications for policy. Health Aff. 2011, 30, 879–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zeliger, H.I. Human Toxicology of Chemical Mixtures, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Boston, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- National Research Council. Science and Decisions; National Academies of Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Clougherty, J.E.; Shmool, J.L.C.; Kubzansky, L.D. The Role of Non-Chemical Stressors in Mediating Socioeconomic Susceptibility to Environmental Chemicals. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2014, 1, 302–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hicken, M.T.; Gee, G.C.; Morenoff, J.; Connell, C.M.; Snow, R.C.; Hu, H. A novel look at racial health disparities: The interaction between social disadvantage and environmental health. Am. J. Public Health 2012, 102, 2344–2351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chari, R.; Burke, T.A.; White, R.H.; Fox, M.A. Integrating susceptibility into environmental policy: An analysis of the national ambient air quality standard for lead. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 1077–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rauh, V.A.; Whyatt, R.M.; Garfinkel, R.; Andrews, H.; Hoepner, L.; Reyes, A.; Diaz, D.; Camann, D.; Perera, F.P. Developmental effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and material hardship among inner-city children. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 2004, 26, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts; National Environmental Justice Advisory Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. 2018–2023 Strategic Plan: Advancing Environmental Health Sciences, Improving Health. Available online: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/strategicplan/index.cfm (accessed on 23 March 2020).
- Payne-Sturges, D.C.; Scammell, M.K.; Levy, J.I.; Cory-Slechta, D.A.; Symanski, E.; Carr Shmool, J.L.; Laumbach, R.; Linder, S.; Clougherty, J.E. Methods for Evaluating the Combined Effects of Chemical and Nonchemical Exposures for Cumulative Environmental Health Risk Assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Macdonell, M.M.; Haroun, L.A.; Teuschler, L.K.; Rice, G.E.; Hertzberg, R.C.; Butler, J.P.; Chang, Y.S.; Clark, S.L.; Johns, A.P.; Perry, C.S.; et al. Cumulative risk assessment toolbox: Methods and approaches for the practitioner. J. Toxicol. 2013, 2013, 310904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, H.; Wang, A.; Morello-Frosch, R.; Lam, J.; Sirota, M.; Padula, A.; Woodruff, T.J. Cumulative Risk and Impact Modeling on Environmental Chemical and Social Stressors. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2018, 5, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sexton, K. Cumulative risk assessment: An overview of methodological approaches for evaluating combined health effects from exposure to multiple environmental stressors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 370–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sexton, K. Cumulative Health Risk Assessment: Finding New Ideas and Escaping from the Old Ones. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. An. Int. J. 2014, 21, 934–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barzyk, T.M.; Wilson, S.; Wilson, A. Community, state, and federal approaches to cumulative risk assessment: Challenges and opportunities for integration. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 4546–4571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lewis, A.S.; Sax, S.N.; Wason, S.C.; Campleman, S.L. Non-chemical stressors and cumulative risk assessment: An overview of current initiatives and potential air pollutant interactions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 2020–2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Linder, S.H.; Sexton, K. Conceptual models for cumulative risk assessment. Am. J. Public Health 2011, 101 (Suppl. S1), S74–S81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rider, C.V.; Dourson, M.L.; Hertzberg, R.C.; Mumtaz, M.M.; Price, P.S.; Simmons, J.E. Incorporating nonchemical stressors into cumulative risk assessments. Toxicol. Sci. 2012, 127, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rider, C.V.; Boekelheide, K.; Catlin, N.; Gordon, C.J.; Morata, T.; Selgrade, M.K.; Sexton, K.; Simmons, J.E. Cumulative risk: Toxicity and interactions of physical and chemical stressors. Toxicol. Sci. 2014, 137, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fox, M.A.; Brewer, L.E.; Martin, L. An Overview of Literature Topics Related to Current Concepts, Methods, Tools, and Applications for Cumulative Risk Assessment (2007–2016). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zartarian, V.G.; Schultz, B.D. The EPA’s human exposure research program for assessing cumulative risk in communities. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2010, 20, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Knudsen, S.H. Regulating Cumulative Risk. Minn. Law Rev. 2017, 101, 2313–2396. [Google Scholar]
- Alves, S.; Tilghman, J.; Rosenbaum, A.; Payne-Sturges, D.C. U.S. EPA authority to use cumulative risk assessments in environmental decision-making. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 1997–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. CalEnviroScreen 3.0. Available online: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen (accessed on 11 December 2020).
- New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). A Preliminary Screening Method to Estimate Cumulative Environmental Impacts; NJDEP: Trenton, NJ, USA, 2009.
- Newark City Council. 16-0803 Environmental Justice and Cumulitive Impact Ordinance; Newark City Council: Newark, NJ, USA, 2016.
- Ellickson, K.M.; Sevcik, S.M.; Burman, S.; Pak, S.; Kohlasch, F.; Pratt, G.C. Cumulative risk assessment and environmental equity in air permitting: Interpretation, methods, community participation and implementation of a unique statute. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 4140–4159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- California State Legislature. Hazardous Waste in SB 673; California State Legislature: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2015.
- Department of Environmental Quality. Cleaner Air Oregon. Available online: https://www.oregon.gov/deq/aq/cao/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 11 January 2019).
- State of New Jersey 219th Legislature. S232. Requires DEP to Evaluate Environmental and Public Health Stressors of Certain Facilities on Overburdened Communities when Reviewing Certain Permit Applications. Available online: https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1168611 (accessed on 5 December 2020).
- Hammersley, M.; Atkinson, P. Ethnography. Principles in Practice; Tavistock Publications: London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Hannigan, J.A. Environmental Sociology, 3rd ed.; Rutledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment; Office of Research and Development National Center for Environmental Assessment: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
- Silbergeld, E.K. Risk assessment: The perspective and experience of U.S. environmentalists. Environ. Health Perspect. 1993, 101, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Risk Assessment Forum. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1986.
- U. S. General Accounting Office. Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities; U.S. General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1983.
- United Church of Christ. Toxic Waste and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites; United Church of Christ: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Browner, C.; Hansen, F. Memo: Cumulative Risk Assessment Guidelines-Phase I Plannig and Scoping; Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
- Pew Research Center. Religious Landscape Study: Religion and Public Life. Available online: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/maryland/#social-and-political-views (accessed on 9 May 2020).
- Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities. Annual Report 2002; Maryland Department of the Environment: Anapolis, MD, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Environmental Law Clinic. Environmental Justice in Maryland; University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2015; p. 21. [Google Scholar]
- Maryland General Assembly. SB607: Environment–Permit Determinations–Cumulative Impact Assessments; 2014. Available online: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/legislation/details/sb0706?ys=2014rs (accessed on 25 August 2018).
- Maryland General Assembly. SB693: Ambient Air Quality Control–Cumulative Air Impact Analysis. In Article–Environment; 2015. Available online: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/legislation/details/sb0693?ys=2015rs (accessed on 25 August 2018).
- Shiffman, J. A social explanation for the rise and fall of global health issues. Bull. World Health Organ. 2009, 87, 608–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- White, D.F.; Rudy, A.P.; Gareau, B.J. Environments, Natures and Social Theory; Palgrave: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Goffman, E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- van Hulst, M.; Yanow, D. From policy “frames” to “framing”: Theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2014, 46, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nesbitt, K.T.; Baker-Ward, L.; Willoughby, M.T. Executive function mediates socio-economic and racial differences in early academic achievement. Early Child. Res. Q. 2013, 28, 774–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheufele, D. Framing as a theory of media effects. J. Commun. 1999, 49, 103–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakoff, G. Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environ. Commun. 2010, 4, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, F. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2003; p. 266. [Google Scholar]
- Iannantuono, A.; Eyles, J. Environmental Health Policy: Analytic “Framing” of the Great Lakes Picture. Environ. Manag. 2000, 26, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elliot, M.; Gray, B.; Lewicki, R.J. Lessons Learned about the Framing and Reframing of Intractable Environmental Conflicts. In Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts; Lewicki, R.J., Roy, J., Gray, B., Elliot, M., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 409–435. [Google Scholar]
- Shmueli, D.; Ben Gal, M. RESEARCH ARTICLE: Creating Environmental Stakeholder Profiles: A Tool for Dispute Management. Environ. Pract. 2005, 7, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rochefort, D.; Cobb, R. The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda; University Press of Kansas: Lawrence, KS, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Koon, A.D.; Hawkins, B.; Mayhew, S.H. Framing and the health policy process: A scoping review. Health Policy Plan. 2016, 31, 801–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schön, D.A.; Rein, M. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Fiorino, D.J. Making Environmental Policy; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Kurtz, H.E. Scale frames and counter-scale frames: Constructing the problem of environmental injustice. Political Geogr. 2003, 22, 887–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šimunović, N.; Hesser, F.; Stern, T. Frame Analysis of ENGO Conceptualization of Sustainable Forest Management: Environmental Justice and Neoliberalism at the Core of Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lis, A.; Stankiewicz, P. Framing Shale Gas for Policy-Making in Poland. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2016, 19, 53–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuller, S.; McCauley, D. Framing energy justice: Perspectives from activism and advocacy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 11, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewicki, R.; Gray, B.; Elliott, M. (Eds.) Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Benford, R.D.; Snow, D.A. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000, 26, 611–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vincent, S.G.; Shriver, T.E. Framing Contests in Environmental Decision-making: A Case Study of the Tar Creek (Oklahoma) Superfund Site. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2009, 5, 164–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bazeley, P.; Jackson, K. Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Corbin, J.; Strauss, A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Harrison, J.L. From the Inside Out: The Fight for Environmental Justice within Government Agencies; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; p. 301. [Google Scholar]
- Liévanos, R.S. Certainty, Fairness, and Balance: State Resonance and Environmental Justice Policy Implementation1. Sociol. Forum 2012, 27, 481–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhillon, C.M. Using citizen science in environmental justice: Participation and decision-making in a Southern California waste facility siting conflict. Local Environ. 2017, 22, 1479–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EJ Screen: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen (accessed on 16 October 2019).
- Lee, C. A Game Changer in the Making? Lessons From States Advancing Environmental Justice Through Mapping and Cumulative Impact Strategies. Environ. Law Report. 2020, 50, 10203–10215. [Google Scholar]
- California Environmental Protection Agency. Designation of Disadvantaged Communities Pursuant to Senate Bill 535. Available online: https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/04/SB-535-Designation-Final.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2020).
- Lievanos, R.S. Retooling CalEnviroScreen: Cumulative Pollution Burden and Race-Based Environmental Health Vulnerabilities in California. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hynes, H.P.; Lopez, R. Cumulative Risk and a Call for Action in Environmental Justice Communities. J. Health Disparities Res. Pract. 2007, 1, 29–57. [Google Scholar]
- Faust, J.; August, L.M.; Alexeeff, G.; Bangia, K.; Cendak, R.; Cushing, L.; Kadir, T.; Milanes, C.; Randles, K.; Welling, R.; et al. California Communities Environmental Health Screen Tool, Version 1.1 (CALENVIROSCREEN 1.1); Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Ed.; California Environmental Protection Agency: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2013; p. 127. [Google Scholar]
- Faust, J.; August, L.M.; Alexeeff, G.; Cendak, R.; Cushing, L.; Kadir, T.; Milanes, C.; Randles, K.; Welling, R.; Wieland, W.; et al. California Communities Environmental Health Screen Tool, Version 1.0 (CALENVIROSCREEN 1.0); Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Ed.; California Environmental Protection Agency: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2013; p. 123. [Google Scholar]
- Department of Toxic Substances Control. SB 673 Permit Criteria–Community Protection. Available online: https://dtsc.ca.gov/sb-673-permit-criteria-for-community-protection/ (accessed on 8 December 2020).
- California Environmental Protection Agency. SB 673 Cumulative Impacts and Community Vulnerability Draft Regulatory Framework Concepts; Department of Toxic Substances Control: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Warren, M.S. Landmark Bill to Protect Poor Communities from Pollution Just Passed N.J. Legislature. Available online: https://www.nj.com/news/2020/08/landmark-bill-to-protect-poor-communities-from-pollution-just-passed-nj-legislature.html (accessed on 30 November 2020).
- Baker, B. He helped pass a historic EJ bill. But he’s just getting started. In The Grist; Grist Magazine, Inc.: Seattle, WA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Sheats, N. Personal Communication: Defining “Overburdened Community” in New Jersey Bill S232; Sheats, N., Ed.; Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Ellickson, K.; (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Saint Paul, MN, USA). Expanding MPCA Cumulative Levels and Effects Permit Requirements (Minn. Stat. § 116.07 Subd. 4a) to the Entire State. Personal communication, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Burby, K. Making it Stick: Local Environmental Review Statutes. Env. Environ. Law Policy J. 2020. Forthcoming. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofricter, R. (Ed.) Reclaiming the Environmental Debate: The Politics of Health in a Toxic Culture; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000; p. 356. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, P. Toxic Exposures: Contested Illnesses and the Environmental Health Movement; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Foreman, C.H. The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice; Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Harrison, J.L. Bureaucrats’ Tacit Understandings and Social Movement Policy Implementation: Unpacking the Deviation of Agency Environmental Justice Programs from EJ Movement Priorities. Soc. Probl. 2016, 63, 534–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, J.L. Coopted environmental justice? Activists’ roles in shaping EJ policy implementation. Environ. Sociol. 2015, 1, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castree, N. Neoliberalising nature: The logics of deregulation and reregulation. Environ. Plan. A 2008, 40, 131–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harvey, D. A Brief. History of Neoliberalism; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Burke, T.A.; Shalauta, N.M.; Tran, N.L.; Stern, B.S. The Environmental Wed: A National Profile of the State Infrastructure for Environmental Health and Protection. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 1997, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Institute of Medicine. The Future of Public Health; National Acedemy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Lawrence, T. Power, Institutions and Organizations. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism; Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., Sahlin, K., Eds.; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 170–197. [Google Scholar]
- Kelderman, K.; Schaeffer, E.; Pelton, T.; Phillips, A.; Bernhardt, C. The Thin Green Line; The Environmental Integrity Project: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- National Research Council. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children; National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- National Research Council. Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment The Task Ahead; National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
HB1210/SB706 Environment-Permit Determinations-Cumulative Impact Assessments 2014 | HB0987/SB0693 Cumulative Air Impact Analysis 2015 | HB0820/SB0398 The REDUCE Act-Reducing Environmental Degradation for the Underserved through Community Engagement 2016 |
---|---|---|
This bill requires permit applicants to submit to Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) a cumulative impact assessment before preparing a tentative determination on an application for permits for operations in unincorporated communities in Prince George’s County. The assessment must address the likely impact on the environment and on human populations that will result from the incremental impact of the activity or proposed facility authorized under the permit when added to the impact of other past and present sources of pollution. MDE must provide a summary of the results of the assessment to the Prince George’s County planning and zoning authority, and, for a specified air quality permit, must post the results on its website. MDE may adopt regulations to implement the bill. | This bill requires MDE to conduct a Cumulative Air Impact Analysis (CAIA) upon receipt of an application for an air quality permit to construct in a “protected community” in the state. If MDE concludes, following a CAIA, that the proposed activity will have an impact, MDE is required to take specified actions on the permit, potentially including denial of the permit. The bill establishes a public participation process to accompany applications for air quality permits, and requires MDE and the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) to study the negative effects of cumulative impacts of pollution and other topics. MDE may adopt regulations to implement the bill. | This bill requires applicant for an air quality permit to (1) estimate and report specified information related to diesel vehicle trips and emissions to MDE and (2) solicit specified information from an “affected community” located around a source or proposed source. “Affected community” means a U.S. Census tract in which the source or proposed source is located that meets specified income and race criteria. Before issuing such a permit, MDE must (1) solicit specified information from the appropriate county or local health department related to incidences of specified health ailments within the affected community and (2) coordinate with the permit applicant to disseminate the information to interested parties. |
Stakeholder Group | Number Interviewed | Context |
---|---|---|
Maryland General Assembly | 2 | Members of the Maryland General Assembly’s Environment and Transportation Committee. |
Environmental and Health Agencies | 8 | Members of the EPA, MDE, MDH, and local government agencies. |
Businesses, Trade Associations, Labor Organizations | 6 | Members of Maryland-based businesses and chapters of trade associations and labor organizations. |
Environmental and Health Nonprofits | 9 | Members of national, regional, and state environmental and health nonprofits. |
Community-based Organizations and Community Leaders | 7 | Members of communities and community-based organizations in Baltimore, Baltimore County, and Prince George’s County. |
Academic and Research Experts | 3 | Members of academic and research communities. |
|
Frames | Subthemes |
---|---|
Evidence and knowledge | Cumulative Impacts |
Cumulative Risk | |
Data and Data Collection | |
Knowledge Production, Ownership, and Transfer | |
Social Justice | Economic Justice |
Environmental Justice | |
Balancing Economic and Environmental Justice | |
Authority and accountability | Association Between Industrial Pollution and Health Outcomes |
Mitigation | |
Policy Environment | |
Experiences with Maryland Cumulative Impact Policy |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Payne-Sturges, D.C.; Sangaramoorthy, T.; Mittmann, H. Framing Environmental Health Decision-Making: The Struggle over Cumulative Impacts Policy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3947. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18083947
Payne-Sturges DC, Sangaramoorthy T, Mittmann H. Framing Environmental Health Decision-Making: The Struggle over Cumulative Impacts Policy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(8):3947. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18083947
Chicago/Turabian StylePayne-Sturges, Devon C., Thurka Sangaramoorthy, and Helen Mittmann. 2021. "Framing Environmental Health Decision-Making: The Struggle over Cumulative Impacts Policy" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 8: 3947. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18083947