Promoting Environmental Justice Through a Community-Based Participatory Research Framework: Characterizing Risks Associated with Living in Uniontown,Alabama

Environmental justice (EJ), environmental racism, and environmental slavery

Low-wealth communities of color are overburdened by environmental hazards due to institutionalized racism, discriminatory zoning policies, locally unwanted land use (LULUs), and historic disinvestment.^1,2,3,4,5 Studies have found that people of color were overrepresented in areas deemed “nonresidential” by zoning ordinances. ⁶ The “-isms” obstruct EJ and prevent communities from realizing their highest potential. ⁷ Environmental racism manifests in the unequal enforcement of environmental policies and the targeting of systematically marginalized and excluded communities for the siting of polluting industries. Environmental racism is prominent in the Deep South, where industries have followed the “path of least resistance,” allowing communities of color in sites such as Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” to become environmental “sacrifice zones” and “dumping grounds” for life threatening operations. The culmination of environmental racism and classism result in environmental slavery: the oppression, devaluation, and sanctioned poisoning of communities of color through capitalistic exploitation and the placement of polluting entities. ⁸

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and citizen science (CS)

CBPR challenges traditional Western science by directly involving communities across all stages of the research process. Community engagement enables research questions to be responsive to local concerns and for the findings to be broadly disseminated to the community.^{9,10,11,12,13} CBPR builds trust and informs environmental health policies through the bidirectional flow of knowledge between investigators and community members.¹³ EJ communities, with the support of community-based organizations (CBOs), have begun to utilize their grassroots activism, lived expertise, and academic and government partners to apply CBPR to address local environmental health disparities.

CBPR centers meaningful community input toward the design and implementation of local environmental decisions. ¹⁴ We previously used the CBPR framework in South Carolina for a baseline assessment of air pollution before the expansion of the Port of Charleston, through the creation of the Charleston Area Pollution Prevention Partnership. ¹⁵ This form of community-driven decision-making was also important in the development and implementation of a Community Mitigation Plan Agreement and Area Revitalization Plan, allowing community contribution to the thoughtful identification of barriers, challenges, and successes in addressing environmental injustices.¹³ Authentic community science utilizes the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) model to enable CBOs and citizens to identify key issues and strategically set goals for the partnership. ¹⁶ When applying the model, multiple stakeholder groups are engaged toward a common goal, disputes are resolved, and solutions are developed that will address local environmental health issues. Our research team previously used the CPS model to bring stakeholders together in three low-wealth African-American communities in North Carolina for collaboration rather than litigation. ¹⁷

Community-driven monitoring

Community-level monitoring had been historically conducted using expensive and complex equipment by government agencies.^18,19,20 Additionally, the nearest government monitors to Uniontown are located more than 50 miles away in Duncanville, Tuscaloosa County, leading to air pollution surveillance gaps and misclassification bias. ²¹ Emerging air monitoring technology has increased the availability of inexpensive and easy-to-use air pollution sensors, such as the Purple Air (PA), resulting in rapidly evolving community science air monitoring approaches. ²² This has created new opportunities for CS, where residents can produce quality data to inform environmental regulation and remediation.^23,24

Legal battles with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)

In 2011, the ADEM renewed the Arrowhead Landfill’s license and approved their 169-acre expansion in 2012. As of 2021, ADEM has been the target of 11 civil rights complaints since 1998, among the most of any state environmental agency. ²⁵ Despite this, ADEM insists its compliance with Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.²⁵ Uniontown’s residents expressed feeling they were exposed to pollution unfairly as a result of the town’s racial and socioeconomic demographics.²⁵ Residents reported formal complaints to ADEM, and in 2013 they submitted one to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), alleging that the landfill was causing a notable decline in health for those living nearby and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.²⁶ This action was supported by Black Belt Citizens Fighting for Health and Justice (BBC), a local group founded in 2005. ²⁶ Residents filed another complaint with the EPA about ADEM for not supporting their right to pursue the case without harassment, partially related to a $30 million defamation lawsuit filed by Arrowhead Landfill against residents. ²⁷ The suit was considered an intimidation tactic. ²⁸ It was ultimately unsuccessful due to involvement by the American Civil Liberties Union, which resulted in a settlement requiring the company to drop the lawsuit and promise adequate containment as well as timely communication of new toxic waste additions.^27,28

In 2018, the EPA found no reason to believe that ADEM violated civil rights, and that the landfill had taken all necessary precautions. ²⁹ The lead attorney representing Uniontown for the case criticized this decision because it was based on air quality measurements taken far from the landfill and because ADEM neglected to investigate the impact on property values. ³⁰ Court testimony also revealed corruption within ADEM, which may have contributed to an unfair, linear permitting process lacking checks and balances. ³¹ In November 2022, ADEM filed a lawsuit against the Waterworks and Sewer Board of the City of Uniontown in Alabama, claiming they violated the Clean Water Act and the Alabama Water Pollution Control Act.³² The lawsuit sought a declaratory judgment ensuring Uniontown Wastewater Treatment Facility continues its remediation plan to fix the decades-long problems harming the low-income, majority-Black residents of Uniontown. ³²

Study area: Uniontown, Alabama

Uniontown, like other overburdened communities in the Deep South, has a significant history of social justice organizing and documented resilience to polluting entities. Uniontown is a predominantly African American low-wealth town whose residents are impacted by The Southeastern Cheese Corp,^30,33,34 which emits a noxious odor and was caught dumping their waste in the town’s creek, Alabama Catfish Feedmill, LLC., and the Arrowhead Landfill.^29,30 The landfill was the dumping ground for 4 million cubic yards of coal ash from the Kingston toxic ash spill.³⁰ Uniontown’s wastewater infrastructure is also in distress; it currently does not have a mechanical treatment system. Residents have complained of a number of issues associated with these environmental hazards, such as peeling paint, poor water quality, and upticks in asthma, neuropathy, dizziness, respiratory headache, stomach ailments, and allergy-like symptoms.³⁴ To our knowledge, no studies in Uniontown have investigated a link between the presence of coal ash, or other pollutants, and the ailments experienced by residents, presenting a critical need for this study.

Purpose

We describe the establishment of a community—university partnership to assess air pollution levels near environmental hazards in Uniontown, Alabama. We gathered baseline PM_2.5 data across five regions in Uniontown: Control, East Downtown, West Downtown, Landfill, and Sprayfield.

Building the partnership: CBPR and the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Center for Community Engagement, Environmental Justice, and Health (CEEJH) and BBC

Uniontown and Perry County, Alabama, are among the poorest regions of Alabama. The median household income in Uniontown is $17,000, well below the Perry County median of $23,447, and Alabama state median of $52,035. ³⁵ Over 50% of Uniontown residents live below the poverty line, compared to 30.7% in Perry County and 14.9% for the entire state. ³⁶ Perry County’s per capita income ranks second lowest among all counties in Alabama. Uniontown’s economic inequality is further emphasized by its lack of broadband services, ranking 353rd among cities in the state, behind other rural and unincorporated areas like Gallion, Marion, and Linden. ³⁷

The partnership between BBC and our research team was formally established in 2018. We utilized the CBPR framework, which sees community members and academic investigators as equal partners in steering inquiry, research design, and data collection. ³⁸ We established a Community Advisory Board (CAB), led by BBC and other local interest groups. We bilaterally decided on roles and responsibilities, facilitated by the codevelopment of a MOU. With the CAB, we codeveloped a community air monitoring plan and built environmental capacity through CS training and technical assistance. Based on our MOU agreement, the BBC agreed to provide the following: (1) local expertise and support; (2) coordination and communication for collaborative study design, letters of support, and other logistical processes; (3) coordination for access to targeted areas of interest and sites of pollution in Uniontown, Alabama, to meet residents interested in participating and training to support the research project and assist with the dissemination of findings; (4) coordination and communications for access to space for team meetings and focus groups for research projects; and (5) administration of local communications for meeting space, local educators, etc.

The MOU also outlined our research team’s role. These responsibilities were developed in collaboration with community leaders. These included: (1) leadership for research projects, monitoring and analysis, budget management, reporting to funders, staff supervision, ensuring effective dissemination of findings, and scientific expertise; (2) resources to train residents in performing air pollution monitoring, access to tools and equipment, and assistance in the assessment of health impacts from exposure to pollutants associated with local environmental hazards; (3) assistance with data management, interpretation, and analysis; and (4) development of risk communication and management materials and successful dissemination. Notably, the MOU included clauses outlining the collaboration’s guiding principles, roles and responsibilities for each party, data management, and intellectual property rights.

Capacity-building efforts

In March 2019, BBC hosted a community listening forum on air quality monitoring where Uniontown residents were invited to share their experiences with environmental injustices in their town (Fig. 1). Chief community concerns included the following: landfill operators’ disrespect for community health and safety, city officials’ unwillingness and/or inability to prevent hazards, high truck traffic, and strong odors throughout the day emanating from the landfill, catfish feedmill, and sprayfield. We were invited to share materials on the environmental health impacts of acute and chronic exposure to coal ash, diesel emissions, and their co-pollutants. Through the community listening forum, we recruited participants for a stationary low-cost air quality monitoring network. Recruited community scientists were trained by our team on how to operate and mount the PAs and manually remove the microSD card to retrieve the data. They were also instructed on how to upload the data to a secure online folder for analysis by our team. We also developed public health brochures for risk communication.

OPEN IN VIEWER

FIG. 1.

Photo from town hall air quality monitoring listening session.

Site assessment

Residents volunteered their homes as host sites. These were fence-line monitoring locations at the perimeter of the following sources shown in Figure 2: Arrowhead Landfill, Harvest Select Catfish, Southeastern Cheese Corp., and Uniontown Sprayfield.

OPEN IN VIEWER

FIG. 2.

Location of sites of interest in Uniontown, Alabama.

CBPR results

Similar to our partnership with West End Revitalization Association (WERA) and Low Country Alliance for Model Communities (LAMC) in the Carolinas to develop an environmental surveillance program and air quality monitoring networks, we worked with Uniontown to map air pollution sources and collect PM_2.5 data.¹³ CBPR relies on empowering residents to build on existing community assets to address environmental burdens. ³⁹ In adherence with this principle of “inpowerment,” we spent the initial weeks of this partnership working with BBC to determine specific air monitoring locations for the sensors. We hosted listening sessions where local residents were recruited and trained to monitor air quality and participate in data collection. During these sessions, we built capacity by providing technical assistance and CS training. Primary monitoring occurred in the following locations: Control, East Downtown, West Downtown, Landfill, and Sprayfield.

Memorandum of understanding and community air monitoring plan

We developed an MOU that provided guiding principles to foster team member community ownership and empowerment, such as power sharing, capacity building through mentoring and learning exchanges, and community ownership of the project. Within the MOU, it was understood by all parties that we would follow a community first model where all information was to be first reported back to the community using clear understandable language, before being publicly disseminated.

We created a community-based air monitoring plan to inform Uniontown residents of our course of action. This document highlighted the following: the overall study purpose, background on pollution sources and their evidence-based health effects, a Uniontown profile consisting of demographic and environmental data, goals of the agreement, planned objectives and deliverables, a timeline for specific phases of outlined objectives, a budget justification, and a list of potential air quality monitoring locations. These thoughtful considerations of study personnel, location, timing, duration, and exact nature of air quality measurements adhered to the principles of an effective monitoring plan, as outlined in previous work. ⁴⁰ Through this partnership, our research team provided PA installation training to undergraduate interns, research assistants, and community partners. The team also provided CS training annually to maintain adherence to best CS practices. We trained residents (n = 36) at the Bright Eye Club in March, 2019. Based on residential proximity to zones of concern in Uniontown and convenience sampling to reach a high sample size for this study and increase statistical power, we deployed PA monitors (n = 13).

Site assessment results

When visiting the sites of interest, most of the residents’ complaints focused on foul odors radiating across the entire town that emanate from the facilities. In May 2019, the research team re-visited the study area to assess changes to the landscape and other factors that could have impacted sensor performance, and conducted an inspection of the Uniontown network. From this follow-up visit, we found that one monitor had been infiltrated by rainwater, reducing its functionality. This was promptly replaced. Over the duration of the study period, we could not conduct routine site visits due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, we discovered that the other monitors had suffered the same fate as the first dysfunctional monitors due to frequent storms and wind patterns funneling rainwater into the sensor compartment, as well as expiration of the two-year PA life cycle.

Impacts of CBPR in Uniontown, Alabama

We followed CBPR and CS approaches to teach Uniontown residents about local air quality including spatial differences, diurnal distributions, the power for testing for significance across the PAs, and general air pollution patterns. This study allowed the community to take matters into their own hands and identify PM_2.5 levels that exceeded the WHO standards, further suggesting that the polluting entities in the town could have contributed to health concerns. Uniontown residents’ increased capacity to gather air quality data could potentially increase pressure on ADEM to integrate EJ into decision-making and permit application processes. ⁴¹

Our partnership succeeded in adhering to the principle of building on strengths and resources in communities, as our team had done with WERA. Our study highlighted the technological and intellectual sharing between community and university partners.⁴¹ For example, University of Maryland (UMD) has more financial resources, staff, and equipment relative to our community partners, so we purchased the equipment needed for the air monitoring network and produced easily digestible visuals for the community. As mentioned in a critical review of an LAMC partnership, community–university partnerships intended to address EJ issues and health disparities can fail due to funding and resource inequities.¹³ By sharing materials and resources, adhering to community requests, and following the community-based air monitoring plan, we minimized tension and maintained a healthy partnership with the BBC. This authentic partnership allowed the implementation of CBPR through principles of mutual accountability, open communication, shared goals, and transparency.⁴¹

Comparison of our CBPR and CS efforts to previous efforts in Uniontown

Based on publicly available data and mini-ethnography with residents and BBC, a Dartmouth study found that barriers to clean water access in Uniontown are primarily via a lack of quality funding resulting from racial discrimination and environmental slavery, which was exemplified by underfunded grassroots and local organizations. ⁴² This study utilized remote methods, whereas our air quality study utilized a high level of direct on-site contact, training, and interaction with the community, adhering to best CBPR and CS practices. Undergraduate students from a University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) study engaged the BBC in a similar manner as we did, by meeting with the community partners and building relationships and trust with citizens of Uniontown, practicing authentic community research. ⁴³ Additionally, the UAB group worked with community members to improve digital literacy to enhance their use of social media to reach more people in their community. Another UAB study involved environmental monitoring and toxicity assessment of the runoff from a hazardous waste site.⁴³ The students visited Uniontown residences, met with community leaders and political leaders, and presented their findings at City Hall.⁴³ In contrast to our study, the latter UAB study practiced more traditional science, and seemed to limit community engagement.

Comparison to other community–university partnerships and CS endeavors

A community–university partnership between the LAMC and researchers at the University of South Carolina examined air quality near the Port of Charleston before its expansion. ⁴⁴ This study incorporated community-owned and managed research (COMR) principles and the EPA’s CPS approach. Similar to this study, our MOU also included COMR principles to allow for independent community science. The team held a series of meetings at local community centers prior to the air sampling period to discuss community concerns about air pollution and related health outcomes. Another similarity between the LAMC study in Charleston and this study was the meaningful engagement of faith groups. As trusted social institutions, religious institutions may offer a structure through which researchers and rural residents can engage to conduct science. In both cases, information about the respective studies was presented at meetings at local churches (Uniontown) and mosques (Charleston).

There were also noticeable differences in the two community–university partnerships. The rural nature of Uniontown made it imperative to form a relationship with the town mayor and council, who are able to directly interact with their constituents, as opposed to mayors of larger cities such as Charleston. Compared to the LAMC partnership, we took an extra step in Uniontown by participating in potlucks and other community events to build social cohesion and trust, a key component of authentic community engaged research. In the Charleston air quality study, residents inquired about local sources of Particulate Matter (PM), the contribution of port activities and diesel traffic toward air pollution in their neighborhoods, and whether diseases such as asthma, COPD, and cancer may be exacerbated by air pollution. In Uniontown, residents pre-identified sources of pollution and host sites for our PAs. A key difference between the Charleston and Uniontown studies was the goods movement infrastructure. In Charleston, the setting was urban with a port, while Uniontown was rural with the landfill and cheese production facility being the main pollution sources. The Charleston study trained 10 residents to use the air monitoring equipment, with the goals of teaching residents how to use the equipment to ensure community participation as “neighborhood scientists.” We trained 36 residents at the Bright Eye Club, resulting in increased community capacity to perform scientific research, and a pipeline of community scientists available to disseminate air pollution information to other residents and stakeholders on the partnership’s efforts to understand exposure and health risks associated with local air pollution.

Challenges and limitations

Lessons learned

We learned valuable lessons based on the challenges of this study. First, the pandemic caught the entire globe by surprise, forcing many partnerships to shift to virtual formats, but Uniontown had limited bandwidth. To address this, we can promote applications for broadband technical assistance. Uniontown, and other rural and unincorporated communities in Perry County, Alabama, can collaborate and submit a joint application to the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA). This department plans to provide technical assistance for communities seeking to expand broadband infrastructure and services in response to the critical need for internet access through its upcoming competitive program called the Alabama Community Broadband Technical Assistance Program. ⁴⁸ With added broadband infrastructure, Uniontown’s PA data would be accessible from the CrowdMap and allow the research team to routinely monitor the sensor and ensure functionality. ⁴⁹ Our geographic distance compounded our constraints with the pandemic and technology; engaging additional university partners within Alabama could provide local support.

We also learned lessons associated with working with other partners. We realized that primary interests may not be completely congruent, and timeframes may change based on institutional needs. We also learned the importance of having a “point of contact” from each partner, so that when organizational changes occurred, it would be easier to maintain communication channels and not have to halt the research phase.

In regards to youth engagement, we did attempt to include youth in the study, including hiring on-site staff, but this approach failed. A Southern California air monitoring study used A Day in the Life program to combine personal air monitoring, participatory science, and digital storytelling to build environmental literacy and capacity among youth participants (n = 18) from four different neighborhoods. ⁵⁰ We can replicate this approach in Uniontown via messaging that emphasizes environmental hazards and the role of environmental racism to build literacy and capacity among young people. The Stanford University School of Medicine deployed an Our Voice Initiative through the Our Voice Discovery Tool mobile app, which allowed citizen scientists to document salutogenic or pathogenic features of their communities that impact their quality of life. ⁵¹ The citizen scientists used their data to identify community priorities to improve local public health. We can adopt this approach in Uniontown to supplement our hyperlocal air monitoring effort to document cumulative burdens. Community research has the potential to drive scientific racism or scientific colonialism through extractive practices, wherein the goals of the partnership may not be achieved and harm is inflicted upon the community.¹³ We circumvented these pitfalls by instituting biweekly partnership check-ins where the team discussed issues and challenges related to trust, group conflict, power, and shared decision-making. These strategies proactively address any issues that arise throughout the partnership. Continuous evaluation of the project can ensure that we are maintaining our relationship with the community by centering their needs. Additional CBPR evaluation metrics can include written evaluation forms after community meetings to monitor community support, interviews to assess effectiveness of environmental health literacy initiatives, and self-evaluation questions to hold ourselves accountable to research practices that are benefiting the community and advocating for long-term change. ⁵²

Future studies

Future studies in Uniontown will ensure better compliance with CBPR principles, particularly in regards to building on strengths and resources of the community, and disseminating findings and knowledge gained to all partners. These were highlighted weaknesses in this study. To prepare future researchers for shifts in leadership structure and prevent knowledge gaps, all primary contact information will be stored in a shared G-Suite or similar storage system. This will foster co-learning and the effective exchange of communication as well as accountability from principal investigators to participating entities. Future studies will also include recorded interviews and focus groups to supplement the data findings. Additional capacity building efforts will focus on providing financial support and technical assistance for the community. This can be achieved by bringing in new partners and supporting Uniontown residents’ applications to community development grants. This partnership contributes to Uniontown’s longstanding history of environmental resilience and resistance in the fight for a healthier and just future.