Toward Environmental Justice in Civic Science: Youth Performance and Experience Measuring Air Pollution Using Moss as a Bio-Indicator in Industrial-Adjacent Neighborhoods

Derrien, Monika M.; Zuidema, Christopher; Jovan, Sarah; Bidwell, Amanda; Brinkley, Weston; López, Paulina; Barnhill, Roseann; Blahna, Dale J.

doi:10.3390/ijerph17197278

Cited by 21 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, Citizen Science may also in some circumstances perpetuate inequalities. When participants serve merely as free data collectors, those who primarily benefit are researchers [211,[222][223][224]. Where such practices bridge the global north and south, data extraction absent anything else echoes colonial exploitation [207].…”

Section: Inequities In Citizen Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where such practices bridge the global north and south, data extraction absent anything else echoes colonial exploitation [207]. Additionally, there are issues of biased inclusion in terms of the populations that are invited to participate in traditional Citizen Science [225,226], with the most marginalized groups likely to be left out [222,223,227,228]. Likewise, there is biased participation in the crowdsourcing of information [229].…”

Section: Inequities In Citizen Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, there is biased participation in the crowdsourcing of information [229]. Finally, approaches taken by well-intentioned researchers may also reinforce existing inequalities, like when a paternalistic stance is taken towards participants (see the use of "provide voice" in Hendricks et al 2018); research seeks to prove the quality and validity of citizen-generated data, thereby reifying the expertise divide between scientists and the public [212,222,223]; or when science education is framed as a unidirectional resource coming strictly from scientists [e.g., 230]. All these have implications for equity in Citizen Science relating back to our themes of how cumulative advantage can impact participation in Open Science, especially related to issues of digital divide, differential levels of resources and skills, and data equity.…”

Section: Inequities In Citizen Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science - A Scoping Review

Ross-Hellauer¹,

Reichmann²,

Cole³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open Science holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible, and re-usable for large audiences. However, making processes open will not per se drive wide re-use or participation unless also accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, financial resources, technological readiness and motivation) to do so. These capacities vary considerably across regions, institutions and demographics. Those advantaged by such factors will remain potentially privileged, putting Open Science’s agenda of inclusivity at risk of propagating conditions of “cumulative advantage”. With this paper, we systematically scope existing research addressing the question: “What evidence and discourse exists in the literature about the ways in which dynamics and structures of inequality could persist or be exacerbated in the transition to Open Science, across disciplines, regions and demographics?” Aiming to synthesise findings, identify gaps in the literature, and inform future research and policy, our results identify threats to equity associated with all aspects of Open Science, including Open Access, Open/FAIR Data, Open Methods, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science, as well as its interfaces with society, industry and policy. Key threats include: stratifications of publishing due to the exclusionary nature of the author-pays model of Open Access; potential widening of the digital divide due to the infrastructure-dependent, highly situated nature of open data practices; risks of diminishing qualitative methodologies as “reproducibility” becomes synonymous with quality; new risks of bias and exclusion in means of transparent evaluation; and crucial asymmetries in the Open Science relationships with industry and the public, which privileges the former and fails to fully include the latter.

show abstract

Section: Inequities In Citizen Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inequities In Citizen Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inequities In Citizen Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science - A Scoping Review

Ross-Hellauer¹,

Reichmann²,

Cole³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature describes engaging youth as research partners who are trained to collect environmental data related to air monitoring and personal chemical exposures [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. However, little research exists that applies theory or evaluates methods on how best to nurture and sustain authentic youth engagement in environmental health research, communication and advocacy, which could ultimately lead to environmental health gains.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authentic Youth Engagement in Environmental Health Research and Advocacy

Cardarelli

Ickes

Huntington‐Moskos

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Training in environmental health (EH) engages and inspires youth to tackle health promotion and policy change. Yet, there is little guidance on how to successfully nurture and sustain youth engagement. This paper compares four case studies of youth engagement to promote EH in rural and urban communities using the Youth Empowerment Solutions (YES!) framework. Of the case studies in rural (Central Appalachia) and urban (Cincinnati, Ohio) communities, two employ citizen science approaches using PhotoVoice and environmental sampling; one engages youth in a science communication camp; and one focuses on policy advocacy. We compare and contrast these case studies using the YES! Critical Components and Empowerment levels. The case studies were discussed at the 2020 Partnerships in Environmental Public Health Meeting, where participants identified challenges and possible solutions for promoting and maintaining authentic youth engagement in EH research and advocacy. Analysis of the case studies indicated that youth engagement activities focusing on the individual were more common than those targeting the organizational setting or the community. Youth demonstrate agency to impact EH issues in their communities by engaging in hands-on opportunities to practice citizen science and advocacy. Overcoming challenges to authentic young engagement is important to sustain this work.

show abstract

“…In recruiting youth from impacted communities and providing them with mentorship, afterschool educational opportunities, skills development, paid work, college preparation and amplifying their voices, YPAR can help dismantle long-standing power dynamics [ 7 ]. The model prioritizes centering impacted communities, building local capacity and expanding future opportunities for improved wellbeing [ 8 , 9 , 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Freedom to Breathe”: Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) to Investigate Air Pollution Inequities in Richmond, CA

Nolan

Coker

Ward³

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Air pollution is a major contributor to human morbidity and mortality, potentially exacerbated by COVID-19, and a threat to planetary health. Participatory research, with a structural violence framework, illuminates exposure inequities and refines mitigation strategies. Home to profitable oil and shipping industries, several census tracts in Richmond, CA are among the most heavily impacted by aggregate burdens statewide. Formally trained researchers from the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health (CERCH) partnered with the RYSE youth justice center to conduct youth participatory action research on air quality justice. Staff engaged five youth researchers in: (1) collaborative research using a network of passive air monitors to quantify neighborhood disparities in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), noise pollution and community risk factors; (2) training in environmental health literacy and professional development; and (3) interpretation of findings, community outreach and advocacy. Inequities in ambient NO2, but not SO2, were observed. Census tracts with higher Black populations had the highest NO2. Proximity to railroads and major roadways were associated with higher NO2. Greenspace was associated with lower NO2, suggesting investment may be conducive to improved air quality, among many additional benefits. Youth improved in measures of empowerment, and advanced community education via workshops, Photovoice, video, and ”zines”.

show abstract

Toward Environmental Justice in Civic Science: Youth Performance and Experience Measuring Air Pollution Using Moss as a Bio-Indicator in Industrial-Adjacent Neighborhoods

Cited by 21 publications

References 52 publications

Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science - A Scoping Review

Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science - A Scoping Review

Authentic Youth Engagement in Environmental Health Research and Advocacy

“Freedom to Breathe”: Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) to Investigate Air Pollution Inequities in Richmond, CA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About