Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 543–555 | Cite as

Analyzing patterns of community interest at a legacy mining waste site to assess and inform environmental health literacy efforts

  • Monica D. Ramirez-AndreottaEmail author
  • Nathan Lothrop
  • Sarah T. Wilkinson
  • Robert A. Root
  • Janick F. Artiola
  • Walter Klimecki
  • Miranda Loh


Understanding a community’s concerns and informational needs is crucial to conducting and improving environmental health research and literacy initiatives. We hypothesized that analysis of community inquiries over time at a legacy mining site would be an effective method for assessing environmental health literacy efforts and determining whether community concerns were thoroughly addressed. Through a qualitative analysis, we determined community concerns at the time of being listed as a Superfund site. We analyzed how community concerns changed from this starting point over the subsequent years, and whether: (1) communication materials produced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other media were aligned with community concerns; and (2) these changes demonstrated a progression of the community’s understanding resulting from community involvement and engaged research efforts. We observed that when the Superfund site was first listed, community members were most concerned with USEPA management, remediation, site-specific issues, health effects, and environmental monitoring efforts related to air/dust and water. Over the next 5 years, community inquiries shifted significantly to include exposure assessment and reduction methods and issues unrelated to the site, particularly the local public water supply and home water treatment systems. Such documentation of community inquiries over time at contaminated sites is a novel method to assess environmental health literacy efforts and determine whether community concerns were thoroughly addressed.


Environmental health literacy Legacy mining waste Superfund site Hazardous waste site Community-engaged research Community engagement 



This work was supported by grant number P42 ES04940 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. The authors would like to thank the Dewey-Humboldt, AZ, community; the Town of Dewey-Humboldt; Jeff Franklin, Dewey-Humboldt Town Librarian; Jeff Schalau, UA Yavapai Cooperative Extension Director; Dr. Paloma Beamer, MESH investigator; and USEPA Region 9 and AZ Department of Environmental Quality Iron King Mine and Humboldt Smelter Superfund Site Project Managers and Community Involvement Coordinators, Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry, and AZ Department of Health Services. We also thank the current UA SRP Director, Dr. Raina M. Maier, and former Director, Dr. A. Jay Gandolfi. Finally, we thank Drs. Mark Brusseau and Phil Brown for engaging in enlightening discussions regarding the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors have none to report.


  1. Adams C, Brown P, Morello-Frosch R, Brody JG, Rudel R, Zota A, Dunagan S, Tovar J, Patton S (2011) Disentangling the exposure experience: the roles of community context and report-back of environmental exposure data. J Health Soc Behav 52:180–96Google Scholar
  2. Agyeman J, Bullard RD, Evans B (2010) Exploring the nexus: bringing together sustainability, environmental justice and equity. Space Polity 6(1):77–90. doi: 10.1080/13562570220137907 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arizona Administrative Code, Title 94 18-7-205. Arizona Department of State, Office of the Secretary of State. Available:
  4. Artiola JF, Wilkinson ST (2015) How to lower the levels of arsenic in well water: what choices do Arizona consumers have? Available: [Accessed 04 May 2015]Google Scholar
  5. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Viera A, Crotty K, Holland A, Brasure M, Lohr KN, Harden E, Tant E, Wallace I, Viswanathan M (2011) Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 199 (Prepared by RTI International–University of North Carolina Evidence- based Practice Center under contract No. 290-2007-10056-I). AHRQ Publication Number 11- E006. Rockville, MD. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. March 2011Google Scholar
  6. Bonney R, Ballard H, Jordan R, McCallie E, Phillips T, Shirk J, Wilderman CC (2009) Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE).
  7. Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB, Wiggins A, Ballard HL, Miller-Rushing AJ, Parrish JK (2014) Next steps for citizen science. Science 343(6178):1436–1437. doi: 10.1126/science.1251554 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradbury JA, Branch KM, Malone EL (2003) An evaluation of DOE-EM public participation programs. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy. Available: [Accessed 27 September 2014]
  9. Brody JG, Morello-Frosch R, Brown P, Rudel RA, Altman RG, Frye M, Osimo CA, Perez C, Seryak LM (2007) Improving disclosure and consent: “is It safe?”: new ethics for reporting personal exposures to environmental chemicals. Am J Public Health 97:1547–54Google Scholar
  10. Brown P (1992) Popular epidemiology and toxic waste contamination: lay and professional ways of knowing. J Health Soc Behav 33(3):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown P, Brody JG, Morello-Frosch R, Tovar J, Zota AR, Rudel RA (2012) Measuring the success of community science: the Northern California household exposure study. Environ Health Perspect 120(3):326–331. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1103734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callahan C, DeShazo JR, Kenyon C (2012) Pathways to environmental justice: advancing a framework for evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation.
  13. Chess C, Purchell K (1999) Public participation and the environment. Do we know what works? Environ Sci Technol 30(16):2685–2692. doi: 10.1021/es980500g CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corburn J (2002) Environmental justice, local knowledge, and risk: the discourse of a community-based cumulative exposure assessment. Environ Mgnt 29(4):451–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corburn J (2005) Street science: community knowledge and environmental health justice. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox R (2013) Environmental communication and the public sphere. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  17. Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  18. Csavina J, Field J, Taylor MP, Gao S, Landázuri A, Betterton EA, Sáez AE (2012) A review on the importance of metals and metalloids in atmosheric dust and aerosol from mining operations. Sci Total Environ 433:58–73. doi: 10.1016/j.scititenv.2012.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickerson S, Reinhart AM, Feeley TH, Bidani R, Rich E, Garg VK, Hershey CO (2004) Patient internet use for health information at three urban primary care clinics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 11(6):499–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Enck J (2014) USEPA Caribbean Citizen Science Workshop. Vital roles for citizen/community groups in the Caribbean. Available:
  21. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc (2010) Remedial investigation report iron King Mine Humboldt smelter superfund site Dewey–Humboldt, Yavapai County, Arizona. Available:$FILE/IKM-HS%20Remedial%20Investigation%20Report%20-%20Version%2001.pdf. [accessed 28 April 2015]
  22. Falk JH, Storksdieck M, Dierking LD (2007) Investigating public science interest and understanding: evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Underst Sci 16(4):455–469. doi: 10.1177/0963662506064240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaetke L, Gaetke K, Bowen C (2008) Challenges to superfund community nutrition programs in Kentucky. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 25(2):277–281. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2007.10.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoover AG (2013) Communication at superfund sites and the reification of division: toward a convergence-building model of risk communication, PhD Dissertation. Available: Scholar
  25. Hudson-Edwards KA, Jamieson HE, Lottermoser BG (2011) Mine wastes: past, present, future. Elements 7(6):375–380. doi: 10.2113/gselememts.7.6.375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB (1998) Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Publ Health 19:173–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lofland J, Snow DA, Anderson L, Lofland LH (2005) Analyzing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Cengage Learning, BostonGoogle Scholar
  28. Loh M, Sugeng A, Lothrop N, Klimecki W, Cox M, Wilkinson S, Beamer P (2013) Exposure to metals in environmental media near a mine tailings site. Annual ISES Conference, Environment and Health: Bridging South, North, East and West, Basel, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  29. Lottermoser BG (2011) Recycling, reuse and rehabilitation of mine wastes. Elements 7(6):405–410. doi: 10.2113/gselememts.7.6.405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Kay K, Milstein B (1998) Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cult Anthropol Meth 10(2):31–36Google Scholar
  31. Mendez MO, Maier RM (2008) Phytostabilization of mine tailings in arid and semiarid environments—an emerging remediation technology. Environ Health Perspect 116(3):278–283. doi: 10.1289/ehp.10608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morello-Frosch R, Lopez R (2006) The riskscape and the color line: examining the role of segregation in environmental health disparities. Environ Res 102:181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Research Council (1996) Understanding risk: informed decisions in a democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. National Research Council (2009) Learning science in informal environments: people, places, and pursuits. committee on learning science in informal environments. In: Bell P, Lewenstein B, Shouse AW, Feder MA (eds) Board on science education, center for education. Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Oomen AJ, Hack A, Minekus M, Zeijdner E, Cornelis C, Schoeters G, Verstraete W, Van de Wiele T, Wragg J, Rompelberg CJM, Sips AJAM, Van Wijnen JH (2002) Comparison of five in vitro digestion models to study the bioaccessibility of soil contaminants. Environ Sci Technol 36(15):3326–3334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pastor M, Sadd J, Morello-Frosch R (2005) The air is always cleaner on the other side: race, space, and ambient air toxics exposures in California. J Urb Aff 27(2):127–148. doi: 10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00228.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pennell KG, Thompson M, Rice JW, Senier L, Brown P, Suuberg E (2013) Bridging research and environmental regulatory processes: the role of knowledge brokers. Environ Sci Technol 47(21):11985–11992. doi: 10.1021/es4025244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Brusseau ML, Artiola JF, Maier RM (2013a) A greenhouse and field-based study to determine the accumulation of arsenic in common homegrown vegetables grown in mining-affected soils. Sci Total Environ 443:299–306. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Brusseau ML, Beamer P, Maier RM (2013b) Home gardening near a mining site in an arsenic-endemic region of Arizona: assessing arsenic exposure dose and risk via ingestion of home garden vegetables, soils, and water. Sci Total Environ 454–455:373–382. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.02.063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Brusseau ML, Artiola JF, Maier RM, Gandolfi AJ (2014a) Environmental research translation: enhancing interactions with communities at contaminated sites. Sci Total Environ 497–498:651–664. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.08.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Brusseau ML, Artiola JF, Maier RM, Gandolfi AJ (2014b) Building a co-created citizen science program with gardeners neighboring a superfund site: the Gardenroots case study. Int Public Health J 7(1);139–53Google Scholar
  42. Rennie L, Johnston DJ (2004) The nature of learning and its implications for research on learning from museums. Sci Educ 88(S1):S4–S16. doi: 10.1002/sce.20017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Root RA, Hayes SM, Hammond C, Maier RM, and Chorover J (2015) Toxic metal(loid) speciation during weathering of iron sulfide mine tailings under semi-arid climate. Appli Geochem (Sp. Ed for D.K. Nordstrom). doi:  10.1016/j.apgeochem.2015.01.005
  44. Scammell MK, Senier L, Darrah-Okike J, Brown P, Santos S (2009) Tangible evidence, trust and power: public perceptions of community environmental health studies. Soc Sci Med 68(1):143–153. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Senier L, Brown P, Hudson B, Fort S, Hoover E, Tillson R (2008) The Brown Superfund Basic Research Program (SBRP): a multistakeholder partnership addresses real-world problems in a contaminated community. Environ Sci Technol 42(13):4655–4662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Silka L, Renault-Caragianes P (2007) Community-university research partnerships: devising a model for ethical engagement. J High Educ Outreach Engage 11(2):171–183Google Scholar
  47. Smith E, Naidu R, Alston AM (1998) Arsenic in the soil environment: a review. Adv Agron 64:149–195. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60504-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith DB, Cannon WF, Woodruff LG, Solano F, Kilburn JE, and Fey DL (2013) Geochemical and mineralogical data for soils of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 801. Available: [Accessed 7 September 2014]Google Scholar
  49. Society for Public Health Education (2007) What is environmental health literacy? Available: [Accessed 4 May 2015]
  50. USEPA (2004) Cleaning up the Nation’s waste sites: markets and technology trends. 2004 Edition. EPA 542-R-04-015 Available: [Accessed 7 September 2014]
  51. USEPA (2009) Iron King Mine –Humboldt Smelter Site Dewey-Humboldt, Arizona Community Involvement Plan. Available:$FILE/IKM%20CIP%2010_09.pdf [Accessed 7 September 2014]
  52. USEPA Fact Sheet (2013) EPA to conduct field work to complete cleanup investigation; new information about residential background and soils. Available:!OpenDocument [Accessed 7 September 2014]
  53. USGAO (2013) Hazardous waste cleanup observations on states’ role, liabilities at DOD and hardrock mining sites, and litigation issues. Available: [Accessed on 26 September 2014]
  54. White BM, Hall ES, Johnson C (2014) Environmental health literacy in support of social action: an environmental justice perspective. Journal of Environmental Health 77(1):24–9Google Scholar
  55. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and method, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  56. Zorn M, Allen MP, Horowitz AM. Understanding health literacy and its barriers (Current Bibliographies in Medicine 2004–1) understanding health literacy and its barriers. US Dept of Health and Human Services, Bethesda MD: National Library of Medicine, May 2004. Available: [Accessed September 25 2014]

Copyright information

© AESS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monica D. Ramirez-Andreotta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nathan Lothrop
    • 2
  • Sarah T. Wilkinson
    • 3
  • Robert A. Root
    • 1
    • 4
  • Janick F. Artiola
    • 1
  • Walter Klimecki
    • 4
  • Miranda Loh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Soil, Water and Environmental ScienceThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public HealthThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Superfund Research ProgramThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Pharmacology and ToxicologyThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations