Communities catalyzing change with data to mitigate an invisible menace, traffic-related air pollution.

OBJECTIVES: To identify strategies and tactics communities use to translate research into environmental health action. METHODS: We employed a qualitative case study design to explore public health action conducted by residents, organizers, and public health planners in two Massachusetts communities as part of a community based participatory (CBPR) research study. Data sources included key informant interviews (n = 24), reports and direct observation of research and community meetings (n = 10) and project meeting minutes from 2016-2021. Data were coded deductively drawing on the community organizing and implementation frameworks. RESULTS: In Boston Chinatown, partners drew broad participation from community-based organizations, residents, and municipal leaders, which resulted in air pollution mitigation efforts being embedded in the master planning process. In Somerville, partners focused on change at multiple levels, developer behavior, and separate from the funded research, local legislative efforts, and litigation. CONCLUSIONS: CBPR affords communities the ability to environmental health efforts in a way that is locally meaningful, leveraging their respective strengths. External facilitation can support the continuity and sustainment of community led CBPR efforts.

Advancing Environmental Justice in the Community Using Charrette: A Case Study in Boston Chinatown.

Background: Community research partners in Boston Chinatown implemented a planning charrette as a part of a community-based participatory study focused on near highway research and public health action to mitigate traffic-related air pollution (TRAP). Charrettes are intensive workshops for solution-oriented design and planning used to bring together diverse stakeholders to address complex environmental health concerns. Methods: The planning charrette included three phases: (1) community meetings and resident interviews, (2) a planning charrette to address community health concerns and air pollution within larger community wellness goals, and (3) development of a Master Planning document with policy, project, and practice recommendations to guide future community advocacy. Outcomes: Intergenerational residents, community leaders, planners, researchers, and volunteers (N = 90) joined a day-long planning charrette to inform the Chinatown Master Plan. Workshops were informed by resident interviews focused on finding solutions to three resident identified priorities: Healthy Housing, Healthy Mobility, and Healthy Public Realm. Air pollution mitigation strategies were embedded in discussions around each priority area. Discussion: The charrette provided an opportunity for community stakeholders to voice concerns about TRAP as part of a new framework focused on health and wellness. Concerns about pedestrian safety, housing access, and expansion of green and recreational spaces were highlighted by participants as important areas for further development. Conclusions: Boston Chinatown residents reaffirmed their investment in the community by highlighting concerns about TRAP within the context of other health-related concerns. Charrettes offer a vehicle to advance environmental justice in communities through collective problem-solving and decision making.

"It has to be designed in a way that really challenges people's assumptions": preparing scholars to build equitable community research partnerships.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical and Translational Award (CTSA) programs are developing relevant training for researchers and community stakeholders participating in community-engaged research (CEnR). However, there is limited research exploring the ways community stakeholders and partners with key CEnR experiences can inform and shape training priorities for prospective CEnR scholars to build meaningful and equitable partnerships. METHODS: This study conducted and analyzed online individual semi-structured in-depth interviews with community stakeholders (n = 13) engaged in CEnR to identify training priorities for graduate students and emerging scholars. FINDINGS: Thematic analysis of 13 interview transcripts revealed four major training priorities for prospective scholars interested in engaging in CEnR: 1) researcher's positionality, 2) equitable power sharing, 3) funding, and 4) ethics. CONCLUSION: Building equitable research partnerships was a central theme woven across all four training priorities. Further research should focus on examining the development, implementation, and evaluation of CEnR training in partnership with community stakeholders and partners with relevant CEnR experience. Adopting a collaborative approach to incorporate both community stakeholders and researchers' priorities can align training competencies to better prepare scholars to engage in building research partnerships.