Centre for Health Promotion Studies

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

Shelagh K. Genuis PhDPostdoctoral Research Fellow

Cindy Jardine PhDProfessor

CPHA_TorontoMay 27, 2014

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Environment and health Potential risks to human health from environmental factors and

conditions are a source of significant public concern in Canada and internationally

Increasing scholarly evidence

Other factors Controversy: Keystone XL pipeline Disaster: Lac Mégantic derailment Citizen action/empowerment: Ban of cosmetic pesticide use

2

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Embedded uncertainty Unknowns (e.g. acute vs. cumulative exposures)

Evolving knowledge and standards (e.g. lead)

Processes/practices introduced by industrial development (e.g. heating bitumen in surface storage tanks)

Varied understanding of ‘environmental health’(may extend from contaminants to climate change)

3

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Objective

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

4

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Environmental scan

EH risk as represented and framed on gov’t websites

EH risk and related issues as understood by representatives from Canadian environmental organizations

Informed by Positioning Theory

Representation of EH risks, other (CSOs) websites (ongoing)

5

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Environmental organizations?

Civil society organization (CSOs)

Non-governmental and non-profit entities (including advocacy groups) that seek to bring about positive social and environmental change

‘multi-national,’ national, local or small grass-roots groups

Not typically private sector, academia, labour, or municipalities

6

http://www.unglobalcompact.org/HowToParticipate/civil_society/ (UN)

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Recruitment

Web-based search; online directoriesRecommendations from partners in Health agenciesSnowball sampling (minimal)

Web presence & explicit concern for both environment and human health

Purposely recruited national and regional Canadian organizations with a range of foci

Interview participants chosen by organizations

Method

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Telephone interviews n = 30

~ 60 minutes (range 40-82 minutes)

NVivo 10 TM

Qualitative analysis(directed content analysis; grounded theory’s constant comparative approach)

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Where?

Location

Western Canada & Prairies 6

Ontario 7

Quebec 3

Maritime provinces 3

National groups 11 West 3

Ontario 8

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Goals/focus Explicit* Implicit**

Education 18 26

Advocacy 10 19

Networking/collaboration 7 30

Support 5 10

Law 3 4

Research 3 13

Lobbying 2 9

* Participant positioning of CSO** Interview content

Goals?

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Specific issues Some concerns shared (e.g. air quality)

But different emphasis (e.g. consumer products, endocrine disruptors, industry)

Greater breadth, contested issues (e.g. MCS, electromagnetic radiation)

Risks/concerns

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Emphasis on ‘socio-political’ concerns Responsibilities of gov’t vs. individuals

Policy and standards

Values/priorities

TrustLaws are also cultural statements …The choices that any government

makes with respect to the kinds of laws and regulations it has is a reflection of the kind of country you want.

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Ultimately responsibleGovernment is an institution that we’ve created to look after the public good … it’s ultimately responsible for implementing the mechanisms that take care of public health, and evaluate and monitor and go back and fix it if it’s broken.

Key role: Proactive policy and standardsEstablishing a protective framework within which others enact responsibility.

‘Governments’ aren’t all the sameMunicipalities do some really impressive work on both mitigation and adaptation. I don’t think the federal government are leading at all the way they should or could.

Responsibility, gov’t

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Ownership of personal healthThat has been a message that has been out there: that individuals have to take responsibility for their personal health ... so now people are.

Enacting power… politically and as consumers

There’s huge power in individual change …becomes group change and community and societal change ... We can’t sit back and wait for government to do it…

Contrasting theme:

Focus on individuals as diversion

The federal government … tries to cast these issues as individual responsibility. … [this] does miss the much larger dimension which is that we live in a very toxic world, which is not of individual people’s making.

Responsibility, individuals

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Democracy & dialogueThere used to be some monetary help from governments to allow us to be at the table, and that is gone.

TransparencyThe other thing that’s happened over the years, is scientists are actually not allowed to deal with the public.

StewardshipCanadians used to believe that our government did a good job on environmental regulation and that we were, as a country, responsible stewards of our environment.

Positioning: Canada (1) past/present, (2) in comparison to others

‘Values’

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Disenchantment with political processesMy mother - she’s just about to turn 80 - always refers to the government as ‘our’ government. And currently people refer to ‘the’ government as if it’s a separate entity, a sort of external somewhat nefarious force.

Tendency to trust local or knownI wouldn’t put public health and the government together in one pile, because public health, especially at the local level, I think there’s an enormous amount of trust there.

Role of experienceI’ve worked with a lot of people in government that work on particular files and particular issues. You know, they have expertise to work on particular files. I’ve not run across one I didn’t trust. They’re great. The politicians on the other hand maybe have another agenda.

Trust

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

General Trust

ValueSimilarity

PastPerformance

GeneralConfidence

Social Trust

Cooperation

Confidence

General Trust: The belief that most people are trustworthy most of the time; trust in strangers. General trust may be experienced as an affect (emotion).

General Confidence: The belief that most future events will occur as expected.

Value Similarity: The judged similarity between the observer’s currently active values and the values attributed to the other (similarity between public and government values).

Past Performance: The observer’s interpretation of the other’s performance (perceived past performance of government in dealing with risk issues of concern).

Social Trust: The willingness to make oneself vulnerable to another in a particular context. The decision to trust someone is guided primarily by emotions (trust in government agencies).

Confidence: The belief that certain future events will occur as expected (confidence in government to take appropriate actions).

Cooperation: Acting, or intending to act, in accord with another toward a common goal (agreement with actions taken to deal with a risk, related to risk acceptability).

Dual-mode model of trust and confidence for risk communication

Siegrist et al. 2003

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Trust & networking/collaboration

Trust or confidence in gov’t actions?

Reports networking /collaboration with some level of gov’t*

No 6 1

Low or qualified 10 2

Some (mixed response) 11 10

Yes 3 3

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

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Trust and success

Trust or confidence in gov’t actions?

‘Success’ stories* Credit for success?

No 6 6 To consumers, public, CSOs

Low or qualified 10 4 To local action, CSOs, specific gov’t programs

Some (mixed response)

11 6 To collaborations (including gov’t/agencies), consumers, local initiatives

Yes 3 2 To collaborations (including gov’t/agencies), public initiative leading to legislation

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

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

General Trust

ValueSimilarity

PastPerformance

GeneralConfidence

Social Trust

Collaboration/Cooperation

Confidence

Trust & confidence model modified

Collaboration as a tool for building trust and confidence?

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Listening and acknowledging to concerns (listening to First Nation groups … listening to the people and acting like you have their best interests at heart)

Mechanism for meaningful community input (e.g. beyond goals of accommodation)

Precautionary approaches to EH concerns

Standards and enforcement that prioritizes health

Risk communication as a means of empowerment (e.g. labeling)

Participant perspectives

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

CSOs contribute actively in a wide range of forums to public discourse on EH Network/collaborate across sectors Active information providers

Concerns extend beyond specific risks to broader values that influence our approach to EH concerns

Networking and collaboration may enhance trust and confidence

Conclusion

Centre for Health Promotion Studies

Acknowledgements The participants who generously shared their thoughts,

perspectives and experiences.

Dr. Michelle Driedger (University of Manitoba), for funding via her Tier II Canada Research Chair in Environmental and Health Risk Communication

Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions (Postdoctoral Fellowship funding)

23

Questions