Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Interdisciplinarity and participatory approaches to environmental health

Reflections from a workshop on social, economic and behavioural factors in the genesis and health impact of environmental hazards

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Environmental Geochemistry and Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews a workshop discussion postulated on the notion that social, economic and behavioural factors are responsible for the creation of environmental hazards and benefits that, in turn, can affect human health, with concomitant effects on future social well-being. The workshop case study centred on environmental health investigations, public engagement and partnership work undertaken following the death of two neighbouring children in Cheshire. Discussion included questions of causality and generalisability. It revealed how the attribution of responsibility for environmental damage to health is fraught with difficulties. It may often militate against an informed and open debate among interested parties, with concomitant implications for reducing the danger from environmental hazards. To improve communication, vocabulary needs to be free from jargon and acronyms, and differences in conceptual approach between different disciplines need to be better understood. The definition of the ‘community’ is itself far from clear-cut, yet questions of how to involve this community in intervention processes are important ones. The workshop identified a clear need for better, more considered forms of communication with communities and the public if fears are to be allayed, but recognised the additional costs that this would incur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, C. R. (2006). Public engagement: Investigating the death of two children. Brownfield Briefing, Essential Guide: Risk Communication (December 2006), 11.

  • Brewer, G. D. (1999). The challenges of interdisciplinarity. Policy Sciences, 32, 327–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruso, D., & Rhoten, D. (2001). Lead, follow, get out of the way: sidestepping the barriers to effective practice of interdisciplinarity. The Hybrid Vigor Institute. Available online at: http://www.hybridvigor.net/interdis/pubs/hv_pub_interdis-2001.04.30.pdf (1 November 2004).

  • Cinderby, S., & Potts, L. (2007). Suspicious cartographers: Some realities of research into stakeholder understanding of the causes and possible prevention of breast cancer. Science and Public Policy, 34, 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. (1997). Communicating about risks to public health: Pointers to good practice. Crown Copyright.

  • Dervin, B. (2003). Human studies and user studies: A call for methodological inter-disciplinarity. Information Research, 9, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E. D. G., Holden, J., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., Reed, M. S., et al. (2006). Learning from doing participatory rural research: lessons from the Peak District National Park. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57, 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairman, R., Murray, V., Kirkwood, A., & Saunders, P. (2001). Chemical incident management: Local authority environmental health practitioners. Chemical Incident Response Service, Guy’s & St Thomas’ Hospital Trust.

  • Hage, M., Leroy, P., & Willems, E. (2006). Participatory approaches in governance and in knowledge production. Working Paper Series 2006/3. Research Group on Governance and Places, University of Nijmegen.

  • Holt, A., & Webb, T. (2007). Interdisciplinary research: Leading ecologists down the route to sustainability? Bulletin of the British Ecological Society, 38, 2–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huby, M., & Dix, G. (1992). Merging methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches to survey design, analysis and interpretation. In A. Westlake, R. Banks, C. Payne & T. Orchard (Eds.), Survey and statistical computing. The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, M., Carss, D. N., & Bell, S. (2006). Working to make interdisciplinarity work: Investing in communication and interpersonal relationships. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57, 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redclift, M. (1998). Dances with wolves? Interdisciplinary research on the global environment. Global Environmental Change, 8, 177–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell, C. (2004). The impact of Local Agenda 21 in England and the implications for the Local Government Act. PhD thesis, Social Policy & Social Work, University of York, UK.

  • Sniffer (1999). Communicating Understanding of Contaminated Land Risks. Project Number SR97(11)F. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report P142. Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research.

  • Taunton, P., & Adams, R. (2001). Impact management during remediation of a former landfill in an urban environment. In Proceedings of the 3rd BGA Conference: Geoenvironmental Impact Management, pp. 251–256.

  • Tress, G., Tress, B., & Fry, G. (2007). Analysis of the barriers to integration in landscape research projects. Land Use Policy, 24, 374–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijkum, C. (2001). A methodology for conducting interdisciplinary social research. European Journal of Operational Research, 128, 290–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, P. C. L., Cinderby, S., Raffaelli, D., Bruin, A. D., Holt, A., & Huby, M. (2007) Enhancing the value of interdisciplinary research in rural areas for researchers and policy-makers. Paper presented at the Royal Geographical Society/Institute of British Geographers Annual Conference, London.

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yearley, S., Cinderby, S., & Rosen, P. (2003). Participatory modelling and the local governance of the politics of UK air pollution: A three-city case study. Environmental Values, 12, 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research paper has arisen out of multidisciplinary discussions held at the MULTITUDE/SEGH workshop, held in June 2007 in Liverpool, UK.

Participants with a wide range of expertise were brought together with the author(s) and this interpretation owes a great deal to those resultant discussions. The participants in this particular theme of the workshop included: Katy Boon, Iain McLellan, Paolo Luria, Ann Power, Alex Stewart, Mamoona Tahir, Jacqui Thomas and Graham Urquhart.

This research and the workshop was administered via an NERC grant (NE/E009484/1) and was supported by the Joint Environment & Human Health Programme, supported by:

- Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

- Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra)

- Environment Agency (EA)

- Ministry of Defence (MOD)

- Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)

- Medical Research Council (MRC)

- The Wellcome Trust

- Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)

- Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)

- Health Protection Agency (HPA)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rupert Adams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huby, M., Adams, R. Interdisciplinarity and participatory approaches to environmental health. Environ Geochem Health 31, 219–226 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-008-9212-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-008-9212-7

Keywords

Navigation