Community-based participatory research projects and policy engagement to protect environmental health on St Lawrence Island, Alaska

Abstract

ObjectivesThis article synthesizes discussion of collaborative research results, interventions and policy engagement for St Lawrence Island (SLI), Alaska, during the years 2000–2012.MethodsAs part of on-going community-based participatory research (CBPR) studies on SLI, 5 discrete exposure-assessment projects were conducted: (a) a biomonitoring study of human blood serum; (b–d) 3 investigations of levels of contaminants in environmental media at an abandoned military site at Northeast Cape – using sediment cores and plants, semi-permeable membrane devices and blackfish, respectively; and (e) a study of traditional foods.ResultsBlood serum in residents of SLI showed elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) with higher levels among those exposed to the military site at Northeast Cape, an important traditional subsistence-use area. Environmental studies at the military site demonstrated that the site is a continuing source of PCBs to a major watershed, and that clean-up operations at the military site generated PCB-contaminated dust on plants in the region. Important traditional foods eaten by the people of SLI showed elevated concentrations of PCBs, which are primarily derived from the long-range transport of persistent pollutants that are transported by atmospheric and marine currents from more southerly latitudes to the north.InterventionsAn important task for all CBPR projects is to conduct intervention strategies as needed in response to research results. Because of the findings of the CBPR projects on SLI, the CBPR team and the people of the Island are actively engaging in interventions to ensure cleanup of the formerly used military sites; reform chemicals policy on a national level; and eliminate persistent pollutants internationally. The goal is to make the Island and other northern/Arctic communities safe for themselves and future generations.ConclusionsAs part of the CBPR projects conducted from 2000 to 2012, a series of exposure assessments demonstrate that the leaders of SLI have reason to be concerned about the health of people due to the presence of carcinogenic chemicals as measured in biomonitoring and environmental samples and important traditional foods.

"We're not going to be guinea pigs;" Citizen Science and Environmental Health in a Native American Community

“…For example, Dr. Schell, who led two adolescent studies, went on to conduct an additional study on reproductive health in Mohawk women. David Carpenter, who worked on both SBRP grants, went on to conduct CBPR research with the Yupik on St. Lawrence Island in Alaska [Miller et al, 2013]. At a conference organized by Cook that brought together indigenous communities impacted by environmental contamination [Hoover et al, 2012], the Yupik women present thanked the Mohawk women for "training David so well," on how to work with Native communities.…”

A Scoping Review of Capacity-Building Efforts to Address Environmental Justice Concerns

“…The most frequently identified strategies included the presence of authentic involvement and participation of the community in planning and data collection (96.4%, n = 53); the implementation of empowerment approaches (77.6%, n = 45); and community organizing/social action (58.6%, n = 34) that encouraged people to advocate for themselves and make demands for increased resources. CBPR was also a common strategy (50%, n = 29) in which community members participated at varying levels in the selection of issues, study design, interpretation of findings, and dissemination (e.g., lay heath advisors and community advisory board; see Table S4) [47,[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77].…”

Interactive Web-Based Visualization for Lake Monitoring in Community-Based Participatory Research: A Pilot Study Using a Commercial Vessel to Monitor Lake Nipissing

“…& Gaddis, 2008) and the impact of environmental factors on public health (Eghbalnia et al, 2013;Israel et al, 2005;Miller et al, 2013) are prominent. In particular, environmental monitoring is complex, as it relies on multimodal data from sensors, images, and empirical observation.…”