Individual and Community Engagement in Response to Environmental Challenges Experienced in Four Low-Income Urban Neighborhoods

Abstract

Low-income urban communities, and the individuals that live within them, continue to face disproportionate interconnected social, economic, and environmental challenges related to their built, natural, and social environments. The aim of our phenomenological research study was to elevate the experiences of residents living in low-income urban neighborhoods in terms of their communities’ environmental challenges. Our objectives were to (1) identify challenges across neighborhoods, (2) identify ways individuals and communities are addressing those challenges, and (3) assess the individual and collective efficacy and engagement of communities to lead environmental improvements in neighborhoods. This study brings forward the voices that are often ignored or misunderstood in these communities and uses an ecological-social perspective. We conducted focus groups (N = 68) in four low-income urban neighborhoods across two Ohio cities in the United States. Participants described five key challenges in their communities: Pollution, abandoned buildings with associated crime, low food access and health concerns, trash and illegal dumping, and lack of trees. We assessed engagement and efficacy using two frameworks focused on individual and community readiness to engage in and lead community change. Policymakers should acknowledge the valuable contributions and leadership capacity of residents in low-income communities to implement environmental initiatives.

Relationship of spirituality, health engagement, health belief and attitudes toward acceptance and willingness to pay for a COVID-19 vaccine

“…Remarkably, health engagement (HE) is characterized as private proactivity in the administration of wellbeing related concerns [ 24 ] and can improve health behavior [ 25 – 27 ]. However, lack of study to investigate the association between HE and vaccine acceptance [ 24 ].…”

Methods in Public Health Environmental Justice Research: a Scoping Review from 2018 to 2021

“…For example, James-Todd et al identified hair products commonly used among 359 Black women in New York City and identified a high prevalence of hormonal activity among these products [ 37 ]. Five epidemiologic studies used qualitative methods [ 43 , 214 , 231 , 243 , 244 ], spanning topics from urban flooding in Detroit [ 244 ], industrial mining in Burkina Faso, Mozambique, and Tanzania [ 231 ], and environmental and reproductive justice on the Gulf Coast of the US [ 43 ]. Finally, five epidemiologic studies used formal mediation analyses to determine if environmental factors mediated the observed relationship between health disparity factors (e.g., poverty) and adverse health outcomes [ 42 , 207 , 252 – 254 ].…”

“…As in exposure-only studies, only 10 of 194 environmental epidemiology studies incorporated community-based participatory or community engagement methods [ 43 , 73 , 224 , 231 , 234 , 243 , 244 , 255 – 257 ]. Four [ 43 , 231 , 243 , 244 ] employed a qualitative approach (e.g., focus group, interviews), with the other six relying on regression methods [ 73 , 234 , 255 – 257 ] and latent profile analysis combined with generalized estimating equations [ 224 ]. Six studies were conducted in the US [ 43 , 73 , 224 , 243 , 244 , 255 ] and 4 in global settings: Lithuania [ 256 ]; Burkina Faso, Mozambique, and Tanzania [ 231 ]; Honduras [ 257 ]; and Peru [ 234 ].…”

Guidelines for Citizen Engagement and the Co-Creation of Nature-Based Solutions: Living Knowledge in the URBiNAT Project

“…The participatory cultures that URBiNAT builds on in each of the seven city districts are characterised by a population of citizens, the vast majority of whom have a good grasp of all the things that need to be improved in their neighbourhood. However, as the literature shows, when the majority of citizens do not see hope, do not trust the authorities, and have social and or health issues, engaging them in co-creation for the benefit of all requires an extraordinary level of mobilisation in order to bring about an individual and community readiness to engage in, and lead, change in the community [70]. As highlighted by practitioners from the field in URBiNAT cities, when reviewing the URBiNAT guideline categories, some significant factors, such as Trust and Transparency, may impact citizen engagement to a greater extent depending on the local context.…”