Environmental health risks: What can we learn from environmental groups?

1. Environmental health risks: What can we learn from environmental groups? Shelagh K. GenuisPhDPostdoctoral Research FellowCindy JardinePhDProfessor CPHA_Toronto May 27, 2014

2. Environment and health • Potential risks to human health from environmental factors and conditions are a source of significant public concern in Canada and internationally • Increasing scholarly evidence • Other factors • Controversy: Keystone XL pipeline • Disaster: Lac Mégantic derailment • Citizen action/empowerment: Ban of cosmetic pesticide use

3. Embedded uncertainty • Unknowns (e.g. acute vs. cumulative exposures) • Evolving knowledge and standards (e.g. lead) • Processes/practices introduced by industrial development (e.g. heating bitumen in surface storage tanks) • Varied understanding of ‘environmental health’(may extend from contaminants to climate change)

4. Objective • To explore and evaluate everyday contexts that influence and incubate public views on Environmental Health (EH) risk.

5. Environmental scan • EH risk as represented and framed on gov’t websites • EH risk and related issues as understood by representatives from Canadian environmental organizations • Informed by Positioning Theory • Representation of EH risks, other (CSOs) websites(ongoing)

6. Environmental organizations? Civil society organization (CSOs) • Non-governmental and non-profit entities (including advocacy groups) that seek to bring about positive social and environmental change • ‘multi-national,’ national, local or small grass-roots groups • Not typically private sector, academia, labour, or municipalities http://www.unglobalcompact.org/HowToParticipate/civil_society/ (UN)

7. Method • Recruitment • Web-based search; online directoriesRecommendations from partners in Health agenciesSnowball sampling (minimal) • Web presence & explicit concern for both environment and human health • Purposely recruited national and regional Canadian organizations with a range of foci • Interview participants chosen by organizations

8. Telephone interviews • n = 30 • ~ 60 minutes (range 40-82 minutes) • NVivo 10 TM • Qualitative analysis(directed content analysis; grounded theory’s constant comparative approach)

9. Where?

10. Goals? * Participant positioning of CSO** Interview content

11. Risks/concerns Specific issues • Some concerns shared (e.g. air quality) • But different emphasis (e.g. consumer products, endocrine disruptors, industry) • Greater breadth, contested issues (e.g. MCS, electromagnetic radiation)

12. Emphasis on ‘socio-political’ concerns • Responsibilities of gov’t vs. individuals • Policy and standards • Values/priorities • Trust Laws are also cultural statements …The choices that any government makes with respect to the kinds of laws and regulations it has is a reflection of the kind of country you want.

13. Responsibility, gov’t • Ultimately responsibleGovernment is an institution that we’ve created to look after the public good … it’s ultimately responsible for implementing the mechanisms that take care of public health, and evaluate and monitor and go back and fix it if it’s broken. • Key role: Proactive policy and standardsEstablishing a protective framework within which others enact responsibility. • ‘Governments’ aren’t all the sameMunicipalities do some really impressive work on both mitigation and adaptation. I don’t think the federal government are leading at all the way they should or could.

14. Responsibility, individuals • Ownership of personal healthThat has been a message that has been out there: that individuals have to take responsibility for their personal health ... so now people are. • Enacting power…politically and as consumers There’s huge power in individual change …becomes group change and community and societal change ... We can’t sit back and wait for government to do it… Contrasting theme: • Focus on individuals as diversion The federal government … tries to cast these issues as individual responsibility. … [this]does miss the much larger dimension which is that we live in a very toxic world, which is not of individual people’s making.

15. ‘Values’ • Democracy & dialogueThere used to be some monetary help from governments to allow us to be at the table, and that is gone. • TransparencyThe other thing that’s happened over the years, is scientists are actually not allowed to deal with the public. • StewardshipCanadians used to believe that our government did a good job on environmental regulation and that we were, as a country, responsible stewards of our environment. Positioning: Canada (1) past/present, (2) in comparison to others

16. Trust • Disenchantment with political processesMy mother - she’s just about to turn 80 - always refers to the government as ‘our’ government. And currently people refer to ‘the’ government as if it’s a separate entity, a sort of external somewhat nefarious force. • Tendency to trust local or knownI wouldn’t put public health and the government together in one pile, because public health, especially at the local level, I think there’s an enormous amount of trust there. • Role of experienceI’ve worked with a lot of people in government that work on particular files and particular issues. You know, they have expertise to work on particular files. I’ve not run across one I didn’t trust. They’re great. The politicians on the other hand maybe have another agenda.

17. Dual-mode model of trust and confidence for risk communication General Trust:The belief that most people are trustworthy most of the time; trust in strangers. General trust may be experienced as an affect (emotion). General Confidence: The belief that most future events will occur as expected. Value Similarity: The judged similarity between the observer’s currently active values and the values attributed to the other (similarity between public and government values). Past Performance: The observer’s interpretation of the other’s performance (perceived past performance of government in dealing with risk issues of concern). Social Trust: The willingness to make oneself vulnerable to another in a particular context. The decision to trust someone is guided primarily by emotions (trust in government agencies). Confidence: The belief that certain future events will occur as expected (confidence in government to take appropriate actions). Cooperation: Acting, or intending to act, in accord with another toward a common goal (agreement with actions taken to deal with a risk, related to risk acceptability). General Trust Social Trust Value Similarity Cooperation Past Performance Confidence General Confidence Siegrist et al. 2003

18. Trust & networking/collaboration *e.g. CMP, working with officials at municipal level, networking with people from Public Health, engagement with hearing…

19. Trust and success *e.g. community initiatives, attention to flame retardants, banning cosmetic pesticide use, removing lead from gasoline, recognition of MCS as disability…

20. Trust & confidencemodel modified General Trust Social Trust Value Similarity Collaboration/ Cooperation Past Performance Confidence General Confidence Collaboration as a tool for building trust and confidence?

21. Participant perspectives • Listening and acknowledging to concerns (listening to First Nation groups … listening to the people and acting like you have their best interests at heart) • Mechanism for meaningful community input (e.g. beyond goals of accommodation) • Precautionary approaches to EH concerns • Standards and enforcement that prioritizes health • Risk communication as a means of empowerment (e.g. labeling)

22. Conclusion • CSOs contribute actively in a wide range of forums to public discourse on EH • Network/collaborate across sectors • Active information providers • Concerns extend beyond specific risks to broader values that influence our approach to EH concerns • Networking and collaboration may enhance trust and confidence

23. Acknowledgements • The participants who generously shared their thoughts, perspectives and experiences. • Dr. Michelle Driedger(University of Manitoba), for funding via her Tier II Canada Research Chair in Environmental and Health Risk Communication • Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions (Postdoctoral Fellowship funding) Questions