Effects of Residential Environmental Screening and Perception Surveys on Superfund Environmental Health Risk Perceptions

Abstract

Residents at one of the nation's largest and longest-operating Superfund sites (Butte, Montana) have expressed environmental health risk perceptions that often diverge from those of EPA and other official stakeholders responsible for the investigation and remediation of site contamination aimed at protecting human health and the environment. A random sample of Butte residents participated in a study of how home-based environmental screening influences environmental health perceptions. Participants completed surveys measuring environmental health perceptions before and after a home site screening of soil and drinking water for lead and arsenic conducted by the research team. Local air monitoring for the same contaminants was also completed during the study period. The home-based screening intervention improved the alignment of subjective participant environmental health perceptions with objective environmental screening measures. Key features of the process that helped achieve this effect included (1) co-locating the collection of participant perceptions and individualized screening measurements; (2) sharing environmental screening results in a clear and unbiased manner; and (3) conducting this work independent of agencies and organizations with direct responsibility for Superfund-related cleanup activities. Empowering residents of a Superfund community with knowledge of the specific kinds and levels of environmental contamination in their home environment may help overcome the gap between agency conclusions regarding environmental health risk and the perceptions of community members.

Keywords: community engagement; environmental health perceptions; superfund.

Figure 1

The overlay in this aerial perspective of the study area shows how intense and widespread historic mining activities were throughout the city, affecting virtually every neighborhood in the Uptown (north) area. “Shafts” marked in yellow indicate openings to vertical access to underground workings. “Hazards” marked in red reveal sites containing potentially hazardous mining wastes. Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit (BPSOU), Shafts and Hazards map layers were developed by Butte Silver Bow County and are available for public use. Authors have obtained these layers from Joseph Griffin (jgriffin2@mtech.edu).

Figure 2

Study area map with air quality monitoring station locations.

Figure 3

Butte residential drinking water As and Pb concentrations. (A) Drinking water As concentrations; (B) Drinking water Pb concentrations.

Figure 4

Aerial view of Butte showing Pb concentrations at each residence sampled. Note that distribution of sites throughout the city, both in the midst of historic mining activities and farther away. Levels of Pb shown represent the maximum value of front yard, back yard, and garden soil at each site.

Figure 5

Butte area residential yard soil and garden soil As and Pb concentrations. (A) Residential soil As concentrations; (B) Residential soil Pb concentrations; (C) Garden As concentrations; (D) Garden Pb concentrations.

Figure 6

Interval plots comparing mean and 95% confidence intervals perception ratings before and after intervention for the three-exposure media (water, air, soil, plus garden). Y-axis title ‘perception rating’ refers to participants perception response on a 6-point Likert-type Scale: 1: Very Good; 2: Good; 3: Somewhat Good; 4: Somewhat Bad; 5: Bad; 6: Very Bad.

Figure 7

Aggregated change in perceptions before and after intervention. Change in perception is the perception difference between before and after intervention rating. Perceptions were reported on a 6-point Likert-type Scale: 1: Very Good; 2: Good; 3: Somewhat Good; 4: Somewhat Bad; 5: Bad; 6: Very Bad. So, Positive x-axis numbers (meaning perception changed from a higher number to a lower number) indicate perceptions have improved.

Figure 8

Three-way perception analysis. (A) tracking changes in perceptions of environmental health concerns before and after intervention. (B) rating change analysis (positive, remained same or negative). It should be noted that post-intervention, only 73% of participants participated. VB/B: very bad or bad; SWB/SWG: somewhat bad or somewhat good, VG/G: very good or good.

Figure 9

Odds ratios between the soil concentration category of arsenic and lead (above or below the EPA action level) and soil quality perception category (negative or positive) as reported by subjects before and after receiving information on the metal concentrations in their yard (n = 35). * The association was significant at the alpha = 0.05 level.