Measuring Community Capacity Using an Environmental Justice Lens

Abstract

Building capacity is fundamental for promoting development of local solutions and enacting broader policy change. However, in the field of environmental justice (EJ), understanding, measuring, and evaluating capacity from a theoretical lens are underutilized. In this study, we measure 10 dimensions of community capacity theory (CCT) and assess their salience in the EJ setting to influence policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) community change. Data for this study are derived from a larger programmatic evaluation of the U.S. EPA’s EJ Academy training program (n = 34; 2016–2019), in which all participants directly applied learned skills to implement a community change project. Participants completed a survey comprising continuous measures assessing each of the 10 dimensions of CCT (n = 55 items); and two categorical environmental change outcomes representing project goal achievement and PSE change. Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to assess the relationship between capacity dimensions and outcome measures. Findings reflect that both project goal achievement and PSE change were significantly associated with CCT dimensions of Resources [H(2) = 6.12, p = 0.05; H(2) = 7.54, p = 0.02] and Sense of Community [H(2) = 11.43, p = 0.00; H(2) = 6.31, p = 0.04], respectively. These dimensions specifically speak to the type of support structures that are instrumental to EJ advocacy work. This study is an initial step in comprehensively measuring 10 complex dimensions of community capacity, showcases the utility in applying a theoretical framework for understanding EJ community change, and can ultimately assist communities in the identification of priority dimensions of focus in working toward achieving PSE change.

BACKGROUND

Community capacity is defined as the processes and “characteristics of a community that affect their ability to identify and mobilize to address social and public health problems.”¹ Because so many of the factors related to health disparities extend far beyond the individual level, building community capacity has been a strategy cited by many to address the need for higher level policy and structural level change.^{2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} Community capacity theory (CCT) is an asset-based model that grew out of an understanding that multiple dimensions, including relationships, values, and necessary resources, are critical for success in driving change and accomplishing desired goals.¹⁰ This theory is widely cited in the literature and has been applied with respect to community and partnership development,^{11,12,13,14,15,16} program evaluation,^17,18,19,20 and community organizing and policy advocacy.²¹ Theoretical dimensions of CCT include citizen participation, community power, community values, critical reflection, leadership, resources, sense of community, skills, social/organizational networks, and understanding community history. Freudenberg et al.²² built on this original model by specifying capacity-building activities mapped to each dimension of community capacity for the purpose of responding to environmental threats. Freudenberg et al.²³ have also detailed general intervention strategies that enhance dimensions of capacity (i.e., authentic participation processes, community-based participatory research, community organizing/social action, empowerment approaches, technical assistance, and training/technology transfer), which pertain to community ability to address environmental health hazards. These strategies have been shown to be influential with community interventions,²⁴ initiatives, collaborations,²⁵ and advocacy efforts²⁶ in responding to environmental threats.

CCT can be used as an organizing framework to better understand patterns for community building and mobilization within the context of environmental justice (EJ) advocacy work. It is also useful in understanding what kind of resources are needed, how they are identified, and how communities can mobilize to accomplish their goals. While the application of CCT has not been traditionally applied within the context of EJ, it is not fundamentally misaligned. In many ways, building capacity has a foundation in decision-making processes that strengthens and develops skills, helps to redistribute power, and increases control over resources. With a theoretical emphasis on community, social capital, competencies, and mobilization of resources, CCT is particularly useful for analyzing EJ efforts by providing insight to the structure and processes of problem-solving efforts needed for making and sustaining environmental change.

With the broad encompassing nature of CCT constructs, model dimensions have been described as being modifiable and having potential to be improved over time²⁷; however, as a framework, this theory lacks precision. This lack of a conceptual model, which can help explain the relationship among constructs, continues to be one of the key limitations in the use of CCT, resulting in challenges regarding measurement and variation in application of the framework. CCT has been measured differentially across numerous research studies,^{28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37} empirically tested once,³⁸ and there has not been an identification of priority dimensions that drive community change. Many have treated capacity as a generalized orientation or community attribute without specific metrics for assessment,^39,40,41,42 others have defined community capacity as a list of dimensions and overlapping constructs,^{43,44,45,46,47,48}^,^49,50,51,52 measuring theoretical dimensions by aligning them with conceptually similar terms such as empowerment,^{53,54,55,56,57,58} competence,⁵⁹ and resilience.⁶⁰ Some authors have attempted to provide guidance on measurement by prioritizing individual dimensions that embody the essence of capacity such as leadership,^61,62,63,64 citizen participation,^65,66,67 skills,⁶⁸ resources,⁶⁹ sense of community,^70,71,72,73 community power,^74,75 communication,^76,77,78 and group cohesion.⁷⁹ Although others have developed multidimensional scales to assess capacity,^{80,81,82,83,84,85}^,^{86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96} they have only reflected priority domains such as connections and networks, leadership, resources, sense of community, and skill development. In this study, we use CCT to give voice to community practices and ground the research in an EJ context, thus providing greater insight into which dimensions contribute to community change. Understanding how community capacity has been referenced, utilized, and measured in previous research provides a foundation for the contributions of this research study.

Thus, to gain a greater understanding of community capacity, this study is an initial step in comprehensively measuring 10 theoretical dimensions, identifying essential components, and assessing their salience in the EJ setting, and how they have been demonstrated in efforts to create community change. These methods also serve to give clearer conceptualization of the theoretical measurement of community capacity. Given that a community’s ability to build capacity is representative of their power and structure, in this study, we focus on problem solving within EJ communities to implement policy, systems, or environmental (PSE)⁹⁷ community change. References to policy include governing behavior, decisions and processes related to both “big P” policies such as formal laws at the public or regulatory levels and “little P” with respect to less formal policies at the individual, organizational, administration, or local implementation levels.⁹⁸ System change involves both unwritten and written rules, and incremental adjustments that can lead to shifts in attitudes, activities, and behavior, which can occur in a network system, with individuals, in a distribution chain, and within programs⁹⁹; and environmental change refers to structural adjustments occurring within the lived environment at the economic, social, or structural levels.¹⁰⁰

Using CCT allows for an understanding of how EJ communities function, are organized, and can promote and advocate for change. This study adds to the body of empirical research and intends to fill a gap in the literature through the measurement of community capacity using an EJ lens; and will identify which dimensions of CCT differentiate successful from less successful community change efforts.

METHODS

Participant recruitment and data collection

Data gathered for this study are derived from a larger programmatic evaluation¹⁰¹ of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice Academy (EJA), in which all participants (further referenced as Fellows) across four cohorts of the EJA (2016–2019; n = 67) were invited to participate. As a part of participation, each EJA Fellow was asked to identify an environmental challenge in their respective communities and apply their newly learned skills toward designing a project and implementing solutions to engage their community to overcome this challenge. From October 2019 to February 2020, EJ Academy Fellows were contacted using the EJA alumni listserv. Interested persons were directed to the Qualtrics¹⁰² online survey platform, consented for participation, and asked to complete a questionnaire. As per the Emory University Institutional Review Board, this research protocol was reviewed and determined exempt; additionally per guidelines, all Academy Fellows were informed that participation was voluntary.

Measurement

The items that comprise the survey represent all 10 domains of CCT¹⁰³: Critical Reflection, Community History, Community Values, Sense of Community, Leadership, Skills, Citizen Participation, Community Power, Resources, and Social/Organizational Networks (see Table 1 and Appendix A for full survey), and have been adapted to better align with the work of community activists addressing local EJ concerns. The survey comprised 55 items and provides an assessment of the presence of each of the 10 dimensions and identifies the current level of community capacity (CCL) of each respective EJ community. The survey included author-created measures, as well as adapted items from the works of Bopp et al.,¹⁰⁴ Lardier et al.,¹⁰⁵ Laverack et al.,^106,107 and Kegler et al.¹⁰⁸ All items used a 5-point Likert scale with response options of not at all, very little, somewhat, quite a bit, and a great deal, representing scores from 1 to 5 with increasing agreecment. Multiple items were adapted from Bopp et al.’s¹⁰⁹ community capacity domains: four items were adapted from the participation scale to assess citizen participation (α = 0.78, possible range = 4–20); eight items were adapted from the community scale to identify the presence of community values (α = 0.90; possible range = 8–40); five items were adapted from the ongoing learning scale to assess the dimension of critical reflection (α = 0.82, possible range = 5–25); six items were adapted to assess leadership (α = 0.90, possible range = 6–30); five items were adapted to identify resources (α = 0.87, possible range = 5–25); a 12-item measure comprising adapted items was used to assess the dimension sense of community (α = 0.91, possible range = 12–60); and a five-item measure comprising three adapted items from the participation scale and two author-created were used items to assess community power (α = 0.90, possible range = 5–25). A single author-created measure was used to identify the extent to which the dimension of community history was present (possible range = 1–5). Eight items were adapted from Kegler et al.¹¹⁰ to assess skills (α = 0.94, possible range = 8–40); two items were adapted from Laverack et al.^111,112 to assess social/organizational networks (α = 0.47, possible range = 2–10).

Table 1.

Theoretical Dimensions and Survey Overview

Community capacity theoretical dimensions		Survey items	Scale reliability	Sample items
Citizen participation	Strong participation among a diverse network that enables the sharing of different interests and perspectives for defining the problem and taking collective action.	4 items	α = 0.78	To what degree do you think that the community has forums or other mechanisms for members to identify problems and actively participate in addressing them?; To what degree do you think that community members feel their contribution matters?
Community history	Awareness of important social, political, and economic changes that have occurred recently or more distal; understanding of community sector, community groups, organizations, and community standing relative to other communities .	1 item	—	Do you think that residents are familiar with their local history?
Community power	The ability to create or resist and be influential with respect to changes across varying community domains and contexts.	5 items	α = 0.81	Do community members have a primary voice in activities aimed at improving their health and well-being?; Is the power to name issues, shape solutions, make decisions, carry out the solutions, and evaluate the results shared with community members?
Community values	Understanding of clearly defined norms, standards, and attributes of the community.	8 items	α = 0.90	To what degree do you think diversity is embraced and to what degree do you think there is a collective sense of fairness and justice.
Critical reflection	The ability to reason logically, self-analyze, as well as analyze and scrutinize other arguments with an understanding of the interaction of the environment on individual and social behavioral outcomes.	4 items	α = 0.82	To what degree do you think the community has an ongoing process to reflect on actions and their results?; To what degree do you think the community is open to new ideas and ways of doing things?
Leadership	The inclusion of formal and informal leadership positions having the ability to direct and encourage participation, sharing of information and resources among a diverse network of community participants.	6 items	α = 0.90	Do the elected leaders in your EJ community work hard to create an environment in which all voices can be heard?; Do the elected leaders in your EJ community encourage, support, and facilitate others to tackle tough issues?
Resources	Access and sharing of resources that are within and outside of community social capital; ability to create trust; confidence and cooperation within and outside of a community.	5 items	α = 0.87	To what degree do people know what resources, knowledge, and skills exist in your community and do people know how to locate and access resources, know how to locate and access resources, knowledge, and skill outside of the community.
Sense of community	An elevated level of concern for community issues, respect, and service to others; connection with place and people who enable community action to address local concerns and produce desired change.	12 items	α = 0.91	To what degree do you think there is a sense of unity and togetherness throughout your community?; To what degree do you think residents have a say about what goes on in their community.
Skills	A variety of abilities such as data collection and evaluation, conflict resolution, problem solving, program planning, resource mobilization, policy advocacy, and ability to manage resource exchange.	8 items	α = 0.94	To what degree does the community have expertise with assessing needs and assets?; To what degree does the community have expertise with evaluating the progress of a project or community initiative?
Social Org. Networks	Supportive interactions between groups of people and organizations, formation of new partnerships, and shared decision-making.	2 items	r₁₁ = 0.47 ^a	Does the community have an organizational structure such as a neighborhood association, community group, coalition, or local organization?

Spearman–Brown formula to estimate scale reliability for two-item measures.

Finally, the survey asked about PSE. This was assessed using the four author-created survey items:

“What is the most important environmental concern in your neighborhood?” with 30 response options that detail a specific environmental hazard, built environment, or social environmental concern (e.g., living near an incinerator, traffic pollution, and pesticides);

“With respect to the action plan that was implemented from the EJ Academy, have you achieved your goal(s)?” measured on a 3-point Likert scale with corresponding scores of increasing goal achievement 0 (no—not at all), 1 (we are making progress), and 2 (yes—we achieved our goal). This measure is further mentioned as “goal achieved” and is grounded within the specific project goal that each Fellow established for themselves. These goals were necessary incremental steps to achieving progress toward the completion of EJ change projects;

“With this environmental concern in mind, what type of change is needed in your community?” with eight response options (court settlement/litigation, enforcement of environmental law/regulation, increased compliance or payment of fines for pollution, introduction of new regulation/ordinance, prevention of construction, mitigation of risk, community development, or unspecified other); and

“Since the EJ Academy training, has your community achieved any of these changes?” using the same eight response options as the previous question and later reduced to a 3-point Likert scale with scores related to increasing categories of change: 0 (no change was achieved), 1 (one change was identified), or 2 (more than one change was identified). This measure is further referenced as “change achieved” and represents longer term outcomes and impacts of the EJ change project implemented.

Analysis

To identify the dimensions of community capacity that differentiate successful from less successful change efforts, we assessed the presence of capacity dimensions and how these dimensions relate to the two environmental change outcome measures: (1) goal achieved (“With respect to the action plan that was implemented from the EJ Academy, have you achieved your goal/s”) and (2) change achieved (“Since the EJ Academy training, what environmental change has your community achieved”). Each question was measured on a 5-point Likert scale, items that pertained to a specific dimension were tallied to create a total dimension score. This total score was then divided by the number of items represented across each dimension. Bivariate associations were then examined to look at associations between the total score of each dimension of community capacity and each of the two outcome measures. Nonparametric independent Kruskal–Wallis H tests were used to understand whether capacity dimensions, scored on a continuous scale, differed based on the categorical outcome measures of goal achievement and environmental change achievement. The Kruskal–Wallis H test statistic followed a chi-square distribution and when the statistic was greater than the critical value (X² = 5.99, DF = 2), groups were identified as being significantly different. When these group differences were observed, the nonparametric Dunn’s multiple comparison test was used for pairwise comparisons. All analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 26.¹¹³

RESULTS

Describing participants’ communities and EJ projects

A total of 34 EJA fellows agreed to participate in this research study. When asked to categorize the focus area of the EJA project through the survey, the majority of participants identified their project as being broadly related to addressing issues of poverty/unemployment (n = 15, 44.1%; see Table 2), followed by poor air quality (n = 11, 32.4%), neighborhood infrastructure (n = 10, 29.4%), and lack of health care (n = 8, 23.5%). Fewer projects were related to living near toxic waste facilities (n = 7, 20.6%), food insecurity/urban agriculture (n = 6, 17.7%), indoor allergens (n = 6, 17.7%), and illegal dumping (n = 6, 17.7%). In terms of community changes resulting from their projects, collectively more than half of the projects identified achieving either increased awareness/education (n = 10, 29.4%) or mitigation/reduction of risk (n = 10, 29.4%). Across all EJ projects, almost all were able to achieve at least one type of community change (n = 28, 82.4%), and a limited few were able to achieve two or more changes (n = 3, 8.8%) or no change at all (n = 3, 8.8%). Table 2 also details that the majority of participants were making progress in achieving their project goal and mean scores for each of the theoretical dimensions of community capacity are detailed.

Table 2.

Community Characteristics (n = 34)

Community characteristics	n	%
Community Environmental concerns*
Drinking water/ground water contamination	8	23.5
Food insecurity/ urban agriculture	6	17.7
High rates of unemployment/ poverty/crime/stress	15	44.1
Illegal dumping	6	17.7
Indoor allergens/lead paint	5	14.7
Lack of health care	8	23.5
Living near toxic waste site facility/incinerator	7	20.6
Neighborhood infrastructure (abandoned buildings, gentrification, lack of recreation center, sidewalks, green space, transportation)	10	29.4
Poor air quality (air pollution, traffic pollution)	11	32.4
Detailed type of community change achieved*
Court settlement	1	2.8
Enforcement of environmental laws	4	11.8
Increased compliance/payment of fines for pollution	3	8.8
Increased awareness, education	10	29.4
Introduction of new legislation	5	14.7
Mitigation/reduction of risk	10	29.4
Prevention of construction of hazardous facility	2	5.9
Unspecified change	1	2.8
No community change	3	8.8
Community Change achieved (categorical)
No community change achieved	3	8.8
One community change achieved	28	82.4
More than one community change achieved	3	8.8
Achievement of Project Goal
No, not at all	3	8.8
We are making progress	23	67.6
Yes, we have achieved the desired goal	8	23.5

Community Capacity Descriptive Statistics	M	SD	Possible Range	Range
Community Capacity Levels (CCL)
Citizen Participation	10.2	2.7	4–20	4–15
Community History	3.3	1.1	1–5	1–5
Community Power	16.9	4.4	5–25	5–21
Community Values	25.2	7.3	8–40	12–37
Critical Reflection	13.8	3.8	5–25	4–20
Leadership	17.9	6.0	6–30	9–30
Resources	14.8	4.4	5–25	5–23
Sense of Community	43.3	10.7	12–60	12–60
Skills	26.4	7.8	8–40	9–40
Social and Organizational Networks	7.2	1.7	2–10	4–9

Bivariate associations: Community capacity dimensions and community change

Table 3 presents bivariate associations between the dimensions of CCL and the two categorical outcomes of goal achieved (with respect to the action plan that was implemented from the EJ Academy, have you achieved your goal?) and change achieved (since the EJ Academy training, what environmental change has your community achieved?). With the outcome of goal achieved and capacity level, significant associations were found with the dimension of Resources [H(2) = 6.12, p = 0.05] and Sense of Community [H(2) = 11.43, p = 0.00], indicating that groups of no achievement, moderate achievement, and full achievement differed from one another. With Resources, significant mean rank differences were found when comparing those who were unable to achieve goals (M = 12.7, p = 0.05) and those who fully achieved goals (M = 17.8, p = 0.04); and moderately achieved goals (M = 14.1, p = 0.03) compared to fully achieved goals, suggesting greater access to resources among those who achieved desired goals. With Sense of Community, significant mean rank differences were found when comparing those who moderately achieved goals (M = 39.9) and fully achieved goals (M = 50.8, p = 0.00), and findings were not significant when compared to those who did not achieve their goals (M = 48.7).

Table 3.

Bivariate Associations with Capacity Dimensions and Outcome Variables

Variables	Desired goal M(SD)			Kruskal–Wallis H(2), p		Community change M(SD)			Kruskal–Wallis H(2), p
Variables	Group 0: No goal achieved (n = 3)	Group 1: Goal moderately achieved (n = 23)	Group 2: Goal fully achieved (n = 8)	Kruskal–Wallis H(2), p		Group 0: No change achieved (n = 3)	Group 1: 1 change achieved (n = 28)	Group 2: More than 1 change achieved (n = 3)	Kruskal–Wallis H(2), p
CCL scale
Citizen Participation	9.7 (1.15)	10.1 (2.85)	10.6 (3.02)	1.07	0.59	9.0 (3.00)	10.4 (2.71)	9.7 (3.51)	0.81	0.67
Community History	4.3 (1.5)	3.3 (1.05)	3.0 (1.07)	3.13	0.21	2.0 (1.00)	3.5 (0.96)	3.0 (1.73)	4.77	0.09
Community Power	14.7 (2.89)	16.4 (4.52)	18.9 (4.19)	2.84	0.24	17.7 (6.51)	16.4 (4.32)	20.3 (2.08)	0.28	0.19
Community Values	26.7 (5.13)	25.4 (6.79)	24.1 (9.91)	0.03	0.98	20.7 (4.51)	26.2 (7.28)	21.0 (8.89)	2.81	0.25
Critical Reflection	13.7 (4.93)	13.3 (4.5)	15.5 (1.85)	3.08	0.22	11.3 (3.05)	13.8 (3.90)	17.0 (1.00)	5.61	0.06
Leadership	19.7 (3.79)	16.8 (5.3)	20.1 (6.99)	2.48	0.29	13.7 (5.51)	18.0 (6.17)	20.3 (4.04)	1.62	0.44
Resources	12.7 (2.08)	14.1 (4.73)	17.8 (2.55)	6.12	0.05*	10.3 (3.06)	14.8 (4.26)	19.7 (0.58)	7.54	0.02*
Sense of Community	48.7 (3.79)	39.9 (10.92)	50.8 (6.80)	11.43	0.00*	33.7 (11.02)	43.4 (10.57)	51.3 (4.04)	6.31	0.04*
Skills	21.3 (2.33)	26.3 (8.93)	28.8 (4.37)	2.36	0.31	24.0 (10.15)	26.0 (7.90)	32.3 (1.53)	2.16	0.34
Social/Org. Networks	6.0 (1.00)	7.1 (1.77)	7.9 (1.73)	2.70	0.26	6.7 (0.58)	7.1 (1.79)	8.67 (1.53)	2.59	0.27
CCL composite	18.3 (3.51)	19.4 (5.77)	23.5 (4.00)	4.07	0.13	15.0 (4.58)	20.4 (5.37)	24.67 (2.89)	4.79	0.09

Pairwise comparison of three groups by Dunn’s Multiple Comparison Test
	Resources	Sense of Community		Resources	Sense of Community
CCL			CCL
Group 0 vs. Group 1	0–1: χ²(2) = −5.06, p > 0.05	0–1: χ² (2) = 10.29, p > 0.05	Group 0 vs. Group 1	0–1: χ²(2) = −10.98, p > 0.05	0–1: χ² (2) = −9.36, p > 0.05
Group 0 vs. Group 2	0–2: χ²(2) = −13.79, p = 0.04*	0–2: χ² (2) = −2.67, p > 0.05	Group 0 vs. Group 2	0–2: χ²(2) = −22.17, p = 0.01*	0–2: χ² (2) = −20.33, p = 0.01*
Group 1 vs. Group 2	1–2: χ²(2) = −8.73, p = 0.03*	1–2: χ² (2) = −12.96, p = <0.01*	Group 1 vs. Group 2	1–2: χ²(2) = −11.19, p > 0.05	1–2: χ² (2) = −10.98, p > 0.05

Statistical significance reported using nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA followed by Dunn’s multiple comparison test, *p < 0.05 denotes a significant factor; however, average values for dimensions are presented for greater comprehension.

In an assessment of the outcome of change achieved and capacity level, significant results were also found with the dimension of Resources [H(2) = 7.54, p = 0.02] and Sense of Community [H(2) = 6.31, p = 0.04], indicating that groups with zero community change, one community change, and two or more community changes differed from one another. With Resources, significant differences were found when comparing those who were unable to achieve any community change (M = 10.3) and those who achieved two or more changes (M = 19.7, p = 0.01), and findings were not significant when comparing differences with one community change (M = 14.8). These findings suggest greater resources among those who were able to achieve more than one community change. Similarly, with the dimension Sense of Community, significant differences were found when comparing those who were unable to achieve any community change (M = 33.7) and those who achieved two or more changes (M = 51.3, p = 0.01), and findings were not significant when compared to the achievement of one community change (M = 43.4), suggesting a greater presence of sense of community among those who achieved more than one community change.

DISCUSSION

This study measures capacity among communities experiencing myriad environmental challenges and highlights essential theoretical dimensions that have been implemented in striving for policy, system, and environmental change. We focused specifically on the theoretical measurement of community capacity as this model allows for an organized understanding of how communities function, what assets are available, and how advocacy for change is promoted and achieved. The application of CCT to EJ is a novel approach and provides great insight on the varying ways in which communities are mobilizing to find resolution to egregious environmental inequities.

Contributions to conceptualizing community capacity

Although capacity has been identified as both a by-product of successful collaborative efforts as well as the result from the achievement of a specific change,¹¹⁴ operationalization of capacity is extremely limited. Research also indicates that community-based capacity building has led to improvements in health and sustained social and environmental change,^115,116 yet there is great diversity in approach,¹¹⁷ and inconsistency in measurement.^{118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127} Amid the alignment of research activities with building capacity or the explicit identification of enhancing community capacity,¹²⁸ assessment continues to be an overarching challenge to the field. Thus, in the compilation of measures, we also acknowledge the complexity of CCT and the challenges in creating alignment with a diversity of practices, and especially those within EJ communities. Theoretical dimensions are multifaceted, and many scholars have provided measurement insight; hence, we have drawn on the works of experts,^{129,130,131,132,133,134,135} and provided greater context as to how capacity can be fully operationalized with a focus on EJ efforts. In this study, we intentionally defined and assessed capacity. So many communities exist with interwoven inequities that it is essential to garner an understanding as to how capacity can be enhanced, how communities mobilize, and how issues related to social equity are addressed. Recognizing that capacity is an ongoing process, assessing its existing level provides an opportunity to understand the current context in which a community is functioning, the degree to which supportive structures exist and can be tapped for community problem-solving, and where additional efforts are needed.

Community capacity and change efforts

With respect to specific dimensions, our findings suggested that resources and sense of community were instrumental for project implementation, achievement of desired goals, and driving community and environmental change. Resources in particular are an instrumental component. They can be represented in the form of time, tangible financial assets, information, facilities, or a reflection of shared social relations resulting in social capital and volunteers.¹³⁶ Resources are often aligned with leadership and the ability of programs/projects, to identify new opportunities for support and access existing assets within and outside of the community. Community-based Participatory Research¹³⁷ and community empowerment¹³⁸ literature stress the importance of building on strengths and identifying resources as critical factors in making broader system and policy change and reducing heath disparities. The dimension of resources also identifies how projects have served as a bridge in the community with assisting in the identification or development of local assets, as well as creating trust and cooperation within and outside of the community. Sense of community is a popular measure of social dynamics as it is grounded in an understanding of shared values, community cohesiveness, and collective experience.^139,140 It often represents the dynamics of relationships that allow members of shared space and place to come together in a sustainable way. Sense of community has been studied in a variety of contexts,¹⁴¹ and has traditionally been related to resilience¹⁴² and being a catalyst for community change,^143,144 as well as being a means to encourage collective action in response to community stressors.¹⁴⁵ Research also indicates that sense of community is positioned as a characteristic of empowerment,¹⁴⁶ and as individuals have greater feelings of security, belonging, trust, and commitment, they are more inclined to take action to address concerns.¹⁴⁷ The sense of community dimension also gives recognition to building a sense of identity, creating a space to discuss, analyze, and come together to support a common good in addressing EJ concerns.

Within the context of this existing body of research, our findings further validate the importance of both resources and sense of community in particular, as imbedded community capacity dimensions, as well as standalone characteristics that are instrumental for EJ advocacy and community change. These dimensions in particular speak volumes to the type of support structures that are essential, the necessity of financial capital, and the great importance of social capital. With respect to larger EJ efforts, the identification of existing community qualities is essential in the developmental stages of a program or project. However, attention to these specific dimensions of capacity is not surprising as EJ advocacy work is grounded in community involvement and mobilization of resources that are needed for making and sustaining environmental changes. The specific findings in this study can have greater impacts for external program implementation and academic community-engaged EJ research, giving greater insight on the necessity of centering community and identification of what fundamental components of capacity are vital for sustainability. Furthermore, there is a great opportunity for this work to be impactful for the many newly Bipartisan Law funded U.S. federal programs offered from the Department of Housing and Urban Developmet, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which are focused on building and enhancing community capacity. Designing programs that give attention to the specific needs of communities and focus on particular dimensions of capacity can have greater potential to advance EJ-related objectives and sustainable community change.

Limitations

Given the cross-sectional nature of this study, measures of change and existing community capacity are only able to be obtained at one point in time. These limitations in particular do not allow the assessment of capacity before the implementation of EJA projects, capacity changes over time cannot be assessed, and sustained environmental community change cannot be predicted. Sampling bias is also a potential limitation, as participants of the EJA were the only persons invited to take part in this study, those who agreed to complete the questionnaire may not be similar to those who were eligible and declined participation. However, aside from the limitations detailed, there is strength in this research design, analytic technique, and the theoretical underpinning of this study, which allow for application of measurement to issues related to environmental equity and further understanding of community-engaged practices and context.

CONCLUSION

Building capacity in communities is vital for ameliorating health disparities, enhancing power, and redressing environmental injustice. However, little to no effort has been given to understanding what capacity exists, what capacity is needed, and what capacity-building approaches have been impactful in making community change. Developing a potential measure for capacity using the theoretical framework of CCT is an instrumental first step in finding resolution to this gap in the literature. Accordingly, our findings shed light on the ability to utilize a theoretical framework for understanding the intricacies of EJ practice. This study is an initial step in comprehensively measuring 10 very complex dimensions of community capacity, identifying essential components, and assessing their salience in the EJ setting and how they were addressed in efforts to make PSE community change. Further with an EJ context, the findings of this study are an initial step in elevating the importance of both social and financial capital (resources) and the necessity of bonding, bridging relationships among people, and a belonging to the community (sense of community), which are impactful for implementing environmental change and addressing environmental injustices. For future work, additional attention is needed in the application of these measures with clear understanding on interdependence, as well as guidance on the relative importance of some dimensions over others in achieving capacity needed to make desired change. However, the findings of this study have advanced scientific knowledge in the application of CCT and can assist communities in the identification of priority dimensions of focus in working toward policy, systems, and community environmental change.

Footnotes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Behavioral, Social and Health Education Sciences, Laney Graduate School, Emory University. We would like to greatly thank the many Environmental Justice Academy Fellows who participated in this research study.

AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, and writing original draft: D.H.Z.W.; conceptualization, resources, and review and editing: S.G. and D.W.; conceptualization and review and editing: N.O.J., D.A.J., and K.K.; conceptualization, methodology, supervision, and review and editing: M.C.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

DISCLAIMER/PUBLISHER’S NOTE

This work is not a product of the United States Government or the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The author(s) is not doing this work in any governmental capacity, the views expressed are his/her own, and do not necessarily represent those of the United States or the U.S. EPA.

INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT

Per the Emory University Institutional Review Board guidelines, this research protocol was reviewed and determined exempt, and all EJA Fellows were informed that participation was voluntary.

AUTHOR DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

FUNDING INFORMATION

This work was supported by a dissertation grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Health Policy Research Scholars Program Cohort 1; Emory University Award I.D. 73920; Grant period 1 September 2016–31 August 2020.