Abstract
Abstract
Although collaborative processes are being promoted as a strategy for managing environmental justice conflicts, the factors that promote and hinder effective collaboration in cases of environmental justice have not been investigated. This study uses a case study approach to provide a nuanced insight into how two attributes of environmental justice conflicts, issue framing and traumatic histories, influence collaborative problem-solving. These attributes challenge common assumptions about the nature of collaboration in environmental justice situations by limiting participants' perceptions of interdependence and inciting the need to build the capacities of all parties engaged in the collaboration. Collaborative processes in New York City's West Harlem, Washington, D.C., and Richmond, California are studied.
Introduction
T
Collaborative problem-solving and environmental justice conflicts
Collaborative processes bring people together to try to achieve shared understanding of a community problem and enable mutually acceptable problem-solving and decision making. 3 Collaborative processes acknowledge that no single person or agency can effectively and independently manage the situation. Such processes are promoted because they may enhance a sense of responsibility and commitment to joint problem-solving, spur innovative solutions, enhance capacity for meaningful and enduring citizen participation, and mobilize diverse resources. 4 However, collaborative processes do not fit all situations and are not without challenges and criticism. 5
Collaborative processes do not inherently create just, equitable and legitimate decision-making forums, nor do they automatically ensure adequate representation or influence for all participants. 6 Common critiques and challenges of collaborative problem-solving include the following: inequitable access to resources, information, influence, and representation; differing organizational goals; and past interactions between parties that inform current relationships and perceptions of trust. 7 Processes that effectively manage such challenges must be carefully constructed. Without a nuanced understanding of the challenges and a process that is intentionally constructed to mitigate the challenges, it is possible that collaborative processes may replicate the very inequities they are meant to alleviate. Consequently, it is important to understand how attributes of environmental justice conflicts influence collaborative problem-solving.
Environmental justice conflicts share a set of characteristics, including conflicts mired in risk and uncertainty, irreversible effects, indeterminate nature, boundaries, and cost, and distributional effects with environmental conflicts, more broadly. 8 However, there are also important distinctions between environmental conflicts and environmental justice conflicts, including how the issues are framed and the presence of traumatic histories. 9
The environmental justice frame brings together historical, social, economic, and ecological dimensions of environmental problems to demonstrate how environmental inequalities are an outcome of historical and present day discriminatory practices and structural inequalities. While most early, and many current, environmentalists focused on the environment–human relationship by detailing the injustices humans have inflicted on the environment, environmental justice issues highlight the environment–human and human–human relationship by focusing on the harm human decisions have inflicted on the environment and each other. 10 Thus, environmental justice frames relate to issues of employment, housing, healthcare, workplace safety, education, and other complex and interrelated social issues. 11
Members of environmental justice communities have experienced traumatic histories. Traumatic histories are past experiences and interactions that have long-term negative effects on individuals and communities. 12 Examples of events that have contributed to traumatic histories in the environmental justice context include the following: having part of a community razed to make space for the construction of a new factory or freeway 13 ; learning that one's home was knowingly built on a toxic site 14 ; suffering negative health effects from the actions of nearby polluting facilities and the inactions of public officials or law enforcement 15 ; or frequently and systematically having been denied opportunities to participate in decision-making processes that influence the daily life of their communities. 16 These experiences shape the current perceptions, interests, emotions, and interactions of the people who were affected, 17 thus, having the potential to shape collaborative processes.
Materials and Methods
A case study approach is used to probe the influence of issue framing and traumatic histories on collaborative problem-solving efforts. Each case selected represents an attempt by diverse parties to manage an environmental justice conflict within the context of an urban watershed. To allow for cross-case comparisons, cases where collaboration was effective and not effective were sought. Three case studies were selected: Harlem Piers Planning Process, Richmond General Plan Update, and Anacostia Watershed Restoration efforts (Table 1).
A multimethod approach was used to collect and analyze case study data. Data sources include semistructured interviews, archival materials, participant observation, and census data. The archival data include news articles, meeting minutes, letters of correspondence, speech transcripts, grant applications, and planning documents. These materials were collected from online websites, public libraries, and participating organizations.
Semistructured interviews were completed in person and through phone. The semistructured approach was selected to maintain comparability between interviews and cases, while also providing space for new relevant variables and causal mechanisms to emerge. Individuals who were quoted or identified in the news articles or on organizational websites as being involved with the conflict or collaborative processes were contacted and interviewed. Additional participants were identified through a snowball sampling. Forty-three interviews were conducted: 10 in West Harlem, 11 in Richmond, and 22 in Anacostia.
An iterative data analysis process was used in this study. In this process, thematic categories, including framing and trauma, were created based on a careful review of each piece of data and a priori knowledge of environmental justice conflicts. The thematic categories were broken down into indices that could be applied to the text in a further review of the data (Table 2). Multiple indices could be applied to any section of text. After the data were indexed, a third review focused on identifying patterns and relationships among the themes. These patterns and relationships were used to identify and understand how attributes of environmental justice conflicts influence collaborative problem-solving.
Overview of case studies
Harlem Piers Park
Harlem Piers Park sits along a segment of the Hudson River between W 125th Street and W 137th Street, and is nestled between Frederick Law Olmstead's Riverside Park to the south and the Riverbank State Park to the north. For decades, the park sat abandoned and falling into disrepair. Large-scale development projects were proposed for the site throughout the years, but none was approved due to the narrowness of the riverfront space, lack of community support, and insufficient funding. 18 In 1998, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), a nonprofit organization that works under city contract to manage development projects, announced a request for proposals (RFP) for the Harlem Piers area.
Community members and organizers viewed the RFP as an attempt by outside interests to make unilateral decisions about their community. “As developers rolled into town, unfurling their grand plans for this long-neglected swath of land bordering the Hudson, the Harlem community bristled. Almost instinctively, residents dug in their heels, resisting the sales pitch and fancy schemes” wrote West Harlem organizers. 19 However, community organizers knew that resistance was not sufficient, “We could mobilize and fight the city against the RFP, but we also needed to offer an alternative.” 20
To make an alternate, community-driven plan reality, organizers from West Harlem Environmental Action (WE ACT), an environmental justice advocacy organization in West Harlem, turned to members of Community Board 9 (CB9) for assistance in a community visioning process. CB9 is a government organization comprising appointed and volunteer community representatives who sponsor community forums and advise elected city officials.
The goal of the visioning process was to create an open space for the collaborative generation of a community vision for the site. 21 Planning preparation included the following: engaging community residents in informational meetings before the design and visioning meeting; arranging food, transportation to and from the site, translators, and childcare; organizing an open invite steering committee; hiring local facilitators; providing sensitivity training to the facilitators; and promoting the planning process. Because an RFP was still out for the land parcel and the visioning process was not organized by NYCEDC, city council advised NYCEDC staff to not participate in the visioning process. However, they were permitted to observe the process. 22 One hundred forty people participated in the visioning process held in April 1999.
In 2000, the NYCEDC announced that it would not adopt any of the five proposals they had received in response to the RFP, nor would it adopt the Harlem-on-the-River plan either. Instead, they would work to complete a Master Plan for the 125th Street area. To oversee the NYCEDCs master planning process, a task force of ∼50 public officials, elected representatives, West Harlem residents, and others with vested interest in the Harlem Piers area was created. Harlem community members, who participated in the Harlem-on-the-River visioning process, participated in the NYCEDC planning process. The NYCEDC plan included features of the Harlem-on-the-River plan, including bike trails, fishing piers, unobstructed views of the river, waterfront seating, historical markers, and public art. The Harlem Piers Park officially opened in November 2008.
Anacostia watershed restoration
A tributary of the Potomac River, the 8.5-mile-long Anacostia River flows through the District of Columbia and Maryland's Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties. The 176-square mile watershed is part of the larger Chesapeake Bay Watershed and is home to over 800,000 people, making it one of the most densely populated watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The Anacostia River is heavily polluted with polychlorinated biphenyls, raw sewage from combined sewage overflows, heavy metals, and pesticides. 23 The southeastern portion of the District of Columbia, which is located downstream from its Maryland neighbors, comprises 17% of the watershed and bears the brunt of the river degradation. 24 The southeastern portion of the District of Columbia is also a predominately low-income and people of color community. According to the 2010 census, 98.1% of residents are people of color, compared to 61.5 in the District of Columbia altogether. 25 Furthermore, over a third of residents live below the poverty line.
A large-scale and long-term Anacostia River restoration effort was initiated in 1987 with the creation of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee, which transformed into the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership (AWRP) in 2006. With the goal of restoring the health of their shared watershed, local, state and federal agencies throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia initiated a partnership with nonprofit, environmental, and citizen's groups in the Anacostia Watershed. 26
Partnership leaders perceive the engagement of southeastern district residents as important because restoration efforts are dependent upon significant federal investments, which will likely come from constituent pressures on Congress. 27 Resident participation has been solicited through the creation and support of the Anacostia Watershed Citizens Advisory Committee (AWCAC).
The mission of AWCAC is to protect and restore the river and its tributaries through education, stewardship, and advocacy. 28 Members of AWCAC coordinate environmental stewardship events, provide advocacy training, facilitate the sharing of resources, and provide input into the annual AWRP work plan. However, participation from individuals and organizations within southeastern Washington, D.C., has been limited. 29
Richmond general plan update
Richmond, California, is nestled in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area. Its residents and officials are dealing with issues stemming from current and past industrial practices, point and nonpoint pollution sources, aging infrastructure, and high unemployment, poverty, and crime. 30 The city is home to numerous incinerators and industrial facilities, including Chevron, General Chemical, Ortho Corporation, and Myers Drum. These facilities have been the site of multiple accidents over the years, including explosions at Chevron in 1994 and 1999, a release of sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide at General Chemical in 2001, and an oleum spill at General Chemical in 1994. In addition, Richmond hosts multiple brownfield and Superfund sites. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Richmond currently has 18 sites where hazardous waste is or has been cleaned up. 31
In light of these challenges, collaborative projects and processes among residents and nonprofit organizations have emerged. Collaborative projects to restore and protect watersheds, create public access to the city's shoreline, provide environmentally related training and employment, and enhance civic participation have been initiated. 32 Thus, in a collaborative spirit and with the approval of Richmond City Council, Mayor Gayle McLaughlin initiated the General Plan update process in 2006.
The General Plan is a document of the city's vision, policies, and goals for land use in the city, and the update process is designed to capture the diverse visions of the business interests and residents of Richmond. Recognizing the diversity of visions within the city, the Richmond Department of Planning initiated outreach to multiple groups by distributing bilingual fliers, supporting a traveling information booth, hosting social functions and community meetings, distributing questionnaires and surveys, and providing information at recreation events. An advisory panel comprising 22 individuals appointed by city council members was created and the city hired a consulting firm from Berkeley to facilitate the planning process.
However, the process has been inundated with challenges, including residents and advisory committee members feeling that their voices were not being heard, distrust that an agreed upon plan would be upheld, a divide among city council members, distribution of inaccurate information, and lack of participation. 33 While it was expected that the plan would be approved by January 2008, the General Plan update was not approved until April 25, 2012. Of the seven city council members, two dissented, citing concerns for economic development and job growth.
Discussion
Influence of issue framing on collaborative problem-solving
The different framing strategies employed by parties in each case influenced if and how interdependence was perceived. Perceived interdependence is a precondition of collaboration. When interdependence is perceived, parties recognize that they are not able to address their interests without working with the other parties, regardless of whether or not working together is desirable, and the potential for direct and constructive communication that addresses the conflict increases. 34
Perceptions of interdependence were limited in the Anacostia Watershed. Environmental organizers in Anacostia framed restoration efforts as a means of reconnecting the people to the land and to each other, and as a means of improving the lives of community members. However, AWRP framed the partnership as a means to improve the ecological quality of the watershed. Their stated mission is “re-establishing as much of the original ecosystem as possible,” through reducing pollutant loads, enhancing aquatic diversity, restoring fish populations, increasing the quantity and quality of wetlands, and expanding forest cover. 35 Anacostia residents did not see the interconnections between the social issues of concern to the community, including equitable access to safe public spaces, and the ecological issues being addressed by the partnership. Consequently, they did not perceive a need to work with the AWRP to address their issues of concern.
One community and environmental organizer in Anacostia described why she has not been a part of partnership activities, “I felt like [AWRP] issues were not our issues. I remember thinking, we could do more, but we did not.” 36 She did not feel that the partnership was addressing the range of issues and constituencies present in the Anacostia community. This sentiment was expressed by all of the interviewees active in environmental organizing in Anacostia.
The issue frames employed by community organizers in Richmond define issues in terms of inequitable distribution of resources and power in the city, and were signified through the common phrase, “Reclaiming Richmond.” However, Richmond leadership framed the General Plan Update Process as an opportunity for Richmond residents to express their views about the direction of Richmond. For example, one flier for a community meeting read, “Come have your say at a workshop!,” 37 and the website encouraged residents to “Watch for opportunities to participate in meetings, workshops, and surveys.” 38 Thus, the framing of the Richmond General Plan Update process encouraged participation, but did not speak about issues of inequality or power.
While parties were modestly working together to create an updated General Plan for the city, community organizers were also exploring pathways other than the General Plan for reaching their goals. For example, proponents of Richmond's North Shoreline preservation were able to secure acreage along Richmond's Breuner Marsh through eminent domain by working with the East Bay Regional Park District. As alternate pathways for achieving goals are explored and realized, perceptions of interdependence diminish.
In contrast, the framing strategies in West Harlem were aligned and interdependence was perceived. West Harlem environmental and community organizers framed the planning process as a means of having voice in the decisions that influence their neighborhood and achieving community determination, 39 and NYCEDC framed the planning process as an opportunity to develop the waterfront in a way that complemented the community vision. For example, in preparation for the NYCEDC sponsored planning process, W Architecture completed a site study, which describes the goal of the study, “A major objective of this study is to develop a critical path for the economic development of West Harlem that enhances the character of the neighborhood and fulfills the visions of the community.” 40 The desire to work with the community is built into the project's objectives and permeated their communications, creating alignment among participants in West Harlem.
Influence of traumatic histories on collaborative problem-solving
Traumatic histories, especially procedural injustices, have denied opportunities to all parties to increase their comfort and capacities to participate in collaborative problem-solving processes in the environmental justice context. A lack of collaborative expertise among residents of environmental justice communities has been widely recognized. 41 However, this analysis suggests that other parties, including facilitators and public officials from outside the environmental justice context, lack experience working collaboratively within situations of environmental injustice too. Processes wherein mutual training and capacity building occurred were advantaged.
Recognizing past injustices and their desire to empower residents, community leadership in West Harlem provided residents with the tools needed to participate effectively. One interviewee 42 noted, “We set about the project to provide resources to the community to better participate in the planning of communities. You cannot just walk in and say this is what we want and translate that into something that can be developed. We needed to provide training and skills so that [community members] could participate.” Thus, information meetings for community residents were held before the visioning meeting, handbooks were distributed, and a discussion of ground rules, and the process kicked off the event. 43
West Harlem community leaders also worked closely with process facilitators to ensure proper sensitivity and responses to historical traumas. They did not want to risk developing a collaborative process that would undermine the ideas and efforts of community members and repeat past injustices. According to the process organizers, throughout these training events, the facilitators were sensitized to the ways community members had been denied voice in similar processes and the ways these past experiences may manifest themselves in resident participation. 44 The training took place before the Harlem-on-the-River planning process and also included a geographical and historical tour of the former Harlem Piers site.
Information about the purpose of the General Plan and the timeline for making decisions about the General Plan were available to Richmond community members, and multiple opportunities to participate in visioning workshops and focus groups were available. However, while opportunities to receive and provide information and perspectives were provided, community members were not offered opportunities to learn about how to participate effectively.
The city of Richmond hired a facilitator from a Berkeley-based consultant team to manage public participation. The facilitator's firm had experience facilitating public processes in other disempowered communities, but training on Richmond-specific dynamics was not provided. According to some interviewees, residents questioned the legitimacy of the facilitator. 45 Furthermore, two residents spoke of the “entropy” and “personality clashes” that interrupted the update process. 46
Capacity building activities and workshops were created and implemented throughout the Anacostia Watershed. For example, AWCAC sponsored two advocacy workshops in 2009 and a stream stewardship workshop in 2008. Approximately 40–60 watershed residents participated in each workshop. 47 However, few of the participants were members of the Anacostia community. Efforts to train facilitators of AWRP have not occurred.
Conclusions
This research used the insights gained from three case studies to identify how attributes of conflicts in the environmental justice context influence collaboration. The results suggest that different framing strategies have created situations where interdependence is not immediately perceived or opportunities to collaborate seized. Traumatic histories, including procedural injustices, have limited parties' experiences with collaboration in the environmental justice context and signal a need for all parties to be oriented toward collaboration in this context. Both attributes influence process expectations and structures, and suggest nuances in how processes are structured may be needed to accommodate the diverse parties' needs and expectations. Finally, the results suggest that collaborative processes in the environmental justice context warrant attention and additional research is justified.