"It wasn't the plague we expected." Parents' perceptions of the health and environmental impact of opencast coal mining

Qualitative research about public health risk perceptions on ambient air pollution. A review study

Background

Understanding public health risk perceptions is essential in efficient environmental health management. In the light of the negative impact of air pollution on health and the direct and indirect mediation of this impact through risk perceptions, it is crucial to better understand the lay perceptions of air pollution. Since qualitative research methods are well suited for this aim, the central objective of this study is to present a review of qualitative research articles in the field of environmental epidemiology that investigate health risk perceptions of ambient air pollution since the 2000s.

Methods

We followed the PRISMA-guidelines which resulted in a selection of 20 scientific articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals that used qualitative research methods and reported on health risk perceptions about ambient air pollution.

Results

Qualitative research in the field of environmental epidemiology is still scarce. Most of the studies included in the review were based on face-to-face interviews and focus group discussions; a minority used a mixed-method approach. Interesting contributions were made with respect to both the perception of exposure to air pollution and the perception of the health effect associated with air pollution.

Conclusions

The review suggests that data generated through qualitative research might complement the traditionally quantitative field of environmental epidemiology. Mixed method multidisciplinary research is likely to provide a more holistic explanation of environmental health patterns observed through quantitative research. These explanations are key in managing environmental health and in developing successful prevention, mitigation and communication strategies. Implementing qualitative research methods contribute to the field of environmental epidemiology as it i) allows for triangulation of findings; ii) generates nuanced findings and new research questions; iii) triggers in-depth understandings of quantitatively identified patterns; iv) leads to additional surprising and/or multifaceted responses; v) enhances relationships between researcher and respondent; vi) increases the awareness of important context-dependent dynamics or interactions that may generate biases and vii) grasps the local, contextual, situational and cultural elements that interact with health risk perceptions.

•

Qualitative research in the field of environmental epidemiology is scarce.

•

Qualitative research data (QRD) can contribute to understand perceptions about exposure to air pollution and its effects.

•

QRD can complement the traditionally quantitative field of environmental epidemiology.

•

Mixed methods multidisciplinary research is likely to provide the most holistic explanations for environmental health research.

•

These explanations are key in managing environmental health.

Mortality and morbidity in populations in the vicinity of coal mining: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Evidence of the association of coal mining with health outcomes such as increased mortality and morbidity in the general population has been provided by epidemiological studies in the last 25 years. Given the diverse sources of data included to investigate different health outcomes in the exposed populations, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) can be used as a single classification standard to compare the findings of studies conducted in different socioeconomic and geographic contexts. The ICD classifies diagnoses of diseases and other disorders as codes organized by categories and chapters.

OBJECTIVES

Identify the ICD codes found in studies of morbidity and/or mortality in populations resident or in proximity of coal mining and assess the methods of these studies conducting a systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic database search of PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus following the PRISMA protocol was conducted to assess epidemiological studies from 1990 to 2016. The health outcomes were mapped to ICD codes and classified by studies of morbidity and/or mortality, and the categories and chapters of the ICD.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight epidemiological studies with ecological design from the USA, Europe and China were included. The exposed populations had increased risk of mortality and/or morbidity by 78 ICD diagnosis categories and 9 groups of ICD categories in 10 chapters of the ICD: Neoplasms, diseases of the circulatory, respiratory and genitourinary systems, metabolic diseases, diseases of the eye and the skin, perinatal conditions, congenital and chromosomal abnormalities, and external causes of morbidity. Exposed populations had non-increased risk of 9 ICD diagnosis categories of diseases of the genitourinary system, and prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

There is consistent evidence of the association of coal mining with a wide spectrum of diseases in populations resident or in proximity of the mining activities. The methods of the studies included in this review can be integrated with individual-level and longitudinal studies to provide further evidence of the exposure pathways linked to increased risk in the exposed populations.

Survey of the effect of odour impact on communities

In the context of environmental malodour, surveys are valuable as they allow for the relatively detailed analysis of multiple factors pertaining to odour perception and subsequent reaction. However, the causes for an individual to experience odour impact while a neighbour will not are still not understood. The goal of this current survey design was to consolidate varying research paths for surveys within the environmental odour research space. This survey investigated the area of effect for wastewater treatment plants by using stratified random sampling techniques that radiated from the industrial areas. Additionally, this survey provided a "non-alerted" response to environmental malodour that represents a step forward for ecological validity. We found a small number of items relating to odour annoyance and home ownership that can be used in order to predict odour impact for individual community members. However, we also did not find any relationship with odour impact and perceived control. This survey design and analysis reconciles the varied approaches towards community surveys administered in prior literature, as well as providing information to improve future community engagement policies.

Parenthood and Worrying About Climate Change: The Limitations of Previous Approaches

The present study considers the correlation between parenthood and worry about the consequences of climate change. Two approaches to gauging people's perceptions of the risks of climate change are compared: the classic approach, which measures risk perception, and the emotion-based approach, which measures feelings toward a risk object. The empirical material is based on a questionnaire-based survey of 3,529 people in Sweden, of whom 1,376 answered, giving a response rate of 39%. The results show that the correlation of parenthood and climate risk is significant when the emotional aspect is raised, but not when respondents were asked to do cognitive estimates of risk. Parenthood proves significant in all three questions that measure feelings, demonstrating that it is a determinant that serves to increase worry about climate change.

The impact of malodour on communities: a review of assessment techniques

Malodours remain the biggest source of complaints regarding environmental issues. This factor is likely to increase, as the urban development steadily encroaches into areas that have malodourous emitting industries (such as wastewater and waste management operations and intensive livestock practices), and has the potential to be both time and fiscally expensive. Despite the enormous amount of research involved in odour detection and abatement, as well as the creation of several distinct methodologies, there has yet been no definitive procedure to evaluate odour impact on communities, as well as community response. This paper is a review of the current methods that explore this problem, as well as a précis of this research field's goals and challenges. The first aim of this review is to illustrate the dichotomy between regulatory-established procedures, such as panellist testing, and methods that are centred around producing a more comprehensive explanation of factors that influence an odour's impact on a community or individual. In that regard, we have addressed several predominant paradigms of inquiry for this field: analytical methods, panellist testing, qualitative research, and survey methods, with associated variants. Secondly, the challenges of measuring and monitoring community impact are discussed. While the quantification of odorants is crucial to appreciating impact, individual-based modifiers of perception have an enormous scope for which to shape the effect of those odours. Perceptual differences are also likely the most dominant variables that influence the elicited behaviour of individuals who have experienced malodour exposure.

Land application of treated sewage sludge: community health and environmental justice

BACKGROUND

In the United States, most of the treated sewage sludge (biosolids) is applied to farmland as a soil amendment. Critics suggest that rules regulating sewage sludge treatment and land application may be insufficient to protect public health and the environment. Neighbors of land application sites report illness following land application events.

OBJECTIVES

We used qualitative research methods to evaluate health and quality of life near land application sites.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with neighbors of land application sites and used qualitative analytic software and team-based methods to analyze interview transcripts and identify themes.

RESULTS

Thirty-four people in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia responded to interviews. Key themes were health impacts, environmental impacts, and environmental justice. Over half of the respondents attributed physical symptoms to application events. Most noted offensive sludge odors that interfere with daily activities and opportunities to socialize with family and friends. Several questioned the fairness of disposing of urban waste in rural neighborhoods. Although a few respondents were satisfied with the responsiveness of public officials regarding sludge, many reported a lack of public notification about land application in their neighborhoods, as well as difficulty reporting concerns to public officials and influencing decisions about how the practice is conducted where they live.

CONCLUSIONS

Community members are key witnesses of land application events and their potential impacts on health, quality of life, and the environment. Meaningful involvement of community members in decision making about land application of sewage sludge will strengthen environmental health protections.

Perceptions of health and environmental impacts of e-waste management in Ghana

This paper explores the perception of health and environmental concerns of workers and residents living close to e-waste recycling sites in Ghana using both qualitative and quantitative research techniques. The social constructionist approach and a logit regression model were adopted to examine the rationale of their claims and concerns which have hitherto been unknown and unexplored. We find that workers' environmental and health perceptions were seriously downplayed and do not match those of epidemiological studies, revealing a lack of convergence between lay and expert knowledge. This study further shows a respondent-specificity rationale; the perception of those directly involved in the processes was mainly influenced by economic considerations, while some at best displayed "genuine" ignorance. We recommend that all policy interventions incorporate approaches that have a better chance of arriving at conclusions economically meaningful to participants and that facilitate greater understanding of health and environmental issues.

Qualitative environmental health research: an analysis of the literature, 1991-2008

BACKGROUND

Recent articles have advocated for the use of qualitative methods in environmental health research. Qualitative research uses nonnumeric data to understand people's opinions, motives, understanding, and beliefs about events or phenomena.

OBJECTIVE

In this analysis of the literature, I report the use of qualitative methods and data in the study of the relationship between environmental exposures and human health.

DATA SOURCES

A primary search on ISI Web of Knowledge/Web of Science for peer-reviewed journal articles dated from 1991 through 2008 included the following three terms: qualitative, environ*, and health. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are described.

DATA EXTRACTION

Searches resulted in 3,155 records. Data were extracted and findings of articles analyzed to determine where and by whom qualitative environmental health research is conducted and published, the types of methods and analyses used in qualitative studies of environmental health, and the types of information qualitative data contribute to environmental health.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ninety-one articles met inclusion criteria. These articles were published in 58 different journals, with a maximum of eight for a single journal. The results highlight a diversity of disciplines and techniques among researchers who used qualitative methods to study environmental health, with most studies relying on one-on-one interviews. Details of the analyses were absent from a large number of studies. Nearly all of the studies identified increased scientific understanding of lay perceptions of environmental health exposures.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative data are published in traditionally quantitative environmental health studies to a limited extent. However, this analysis demonstrates the potential of qualitative data to improve understanding of complex exposure pathways, including the influence of social factors on environmental health, and health outcomes.

Tangible evidence, trust and power: public perceptions of community environmental health studies

Communities with environmental health concerns in the USA frequently request studies from their local or state departments of public health. This paper presents findings from three focus groups conducted in communities north of Boston that have been the subject of two different environmental health studies. The focus groups were designed to elicit residents' perceptions of environmental health, and of the particular studies conducted in their communities. In all focus groups, participants had difficulty accepting the findings of health studies that contradicted their own experiences of environmental exposures and illness. Our results suggest that lay knowledge, informed in varying degrees by the experience of what we term "tangible evidence," creates a lens through which communities interpret a health study's findings. The differences in reliance on tangible evidence were related to participants' sense of trust in public officials, and the institutions responsible for conducting health studies. Participants from the wealthier, predominantly white communities discussed trust in study design and methodologies used. In contrast, participants from the lower-income, higher-minority communities assessed health studies with reference to their trust (or lack thereof) in study sponsors and public health institutions. Participants' experience of tangible evidence, trust or distrust in health agencies and research institutions, and a sense of relative community power, influence how they assess the findings of environmental health studies and may have implications for pubic health.