Figure 1
Venn diagram of intersections between citizen science (CS), community-engaged research (CEnR), community-engaged disaster research (CEnDR), and community-based participatory research (CBPR) aligned with elements of engagement, involvement, and participation, as described by Wooley et al (2016).
Table 1
Description of case studies, community concerns following the disaster, level of community-engaged disaster research (CEnDR), and description of the research methodology and tools used.
| DEEPWATER HORIZON GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL (MC252). | HURRICANE HARVEY | NORTHWEST WILDFIRES | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disaster type | Chemical disaster – oil spill | Hurricane-caused flooding | Wildfire |
| Date of disaster | April 20 – September 19, 2010 | August 17 – September 2, 2017 | June – October, annually |
| Description of disaster | An industrial disaster on the Deepwater Horizon resulted in an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled from the Mississippi Canyon 252 (MC252) well over 87 days. Researchers collected pre-oiling samples as it took weeks for oil to reach the beaches. | Rainfall from Hurricane Harvey resulted in up to 60 inches of rainfall in 4 days, leading to catastrophic flooding (Oluyomi et al. 2021). Thirteen Superfund sites flooded in Houston, TX (EPA 2017). | Wildfires are increasing in size, and subsequent smoke impact is leading to acute health impacts (Aguilera et al. 2021). Wildfire smoke composition varies between fires (type of wood burned, type of structures burned). |
| Geographic extent (US) | Gulf of Mexico and the coasts of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida | Texas, Louisiana | Fires located in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, California. Smoke has travelled across the US and into Canada. |
| Community concerns (research issue) | Impacts to human health, marine life, economy. Concern regarding exposure to oil and chemical dispersants via contaminated air and water, local seafood, use of public and private beaches, residual oil, and potential for re-exposure due to hurricanes unearthing buried oil near the shore (Allan et al. 2012). | Exposure to air toxics following emergency shut-down and start-up procedures at petrochemical facilities and the subsequent release of benzene and other chemicals (Miller and Craft 2018). Concern regarding exposure to chemicals from the 13 flooded Superfund sites | Concern regarding exposure to wildfire smoke from air or deposition on vegetables Chemical composition of wildfire smoke and impacts on human health Behaviors that would reduce exposure to wildfire smoke. |
| Level of CEnDR | Involvement community provided input on study design and sampling sites and helped maintain security of samplers Provided local knowledge about relevant activities near sampling sites Engagement community remained engaged through research dissemination and scientific outreach at a workshop | Involvement community involved in recruitment efforts and input regarding report-back efforts (focus groups) Engagement Ongoing research dissemination and forums | Involvement Involved in the research issue identification Participation Community members set up samplers and collected samples before, during, and after wildfires. |
| Participant retention rate | Not applicable | Retention across two time points = 57%. | Retention across three time points (3 years) = 62%. |
| Research methodology | Environmental sampling conducted before, during, and after shoreline oiling. Chemical analytes: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. | Personal sampling conducted during and one year after flooding. Chemical analytes: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, flame retardants, polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, dioxins and furans, endocrine disruptors, personal care products, industrial, and pharmaceutical chemicals. Secondary data: Area deprivation index; proximity to toxic waste sites. | Environmental sampling and questionnaires conducted before, during, and after wildfires. Chemical analytes: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Secondary data: PM2.5, NOAA Hazard Mapping data. |
| Research tool(s) | Environmental passive samplers. | Passive sampling wristbands; questionnaires. | Environmental passive samplers; questionnaires. |
| Duration of study | May 2010 – May 2011 | August 2017 – present | 2018 – 2020 |
Table 2
Challenges and mitigations associated with community-engaged disaster research (CEnDR).
| INFRASTRUCTURE | CHALLENGE | MITIGATION |
|---|---|---|
| ALL DISASTERS | ||
| Physical | Geographic constraints due to distance from disaster or physical damage caused by disaster; researchers impacted by disaster. | Use of NIH-funded centers and networks to identify collaborators and appropriate research tools. |
| Technological | Coordination amongst scientists, regional and federal agencies, community organizations. | Development of a research dashboard to reduce participant burden. |
| Social | Funding for timely research responses that includes CEnDR. | Include disaster research as a theme in currently funded research programs and Centers |
| Timely ethical review for research studies; coordination between institutions | Pre-positioned disaster IRB | |
| Context. Historical context; culture; existing disparities | Research designed with and by communities | |
| Lack of central information repository for all studies relating to the disaster | Increased collaboration to share tools and reduce burden on communities | |
| Multiple | Methods of mitigating exposures specific to the unique disaster that are relevant, economic, feasible and appropriate. | Present multiple mitigation activities, cognizant of regional and cultural context, financial burden, availability, and housing status (rent/own/other). |
| GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL | ||
| Physical | Access to study sites; location of study sites; site security | Work with Federal and State agencies to obtain appropriate permitting. |
| Social | Study site selection | Work with existing community groups to identify appropriate sampling locations. |
| Community context. Given the nature of the disaster, tensions were high. | Researchers set clear expectations with the study (source of funding, goal of research, communication of results). | |
| Inability to collect personal samples. | Developed a pre-positioned disaster IRB. | |
| HURRICANE HARVEY | ||
| Physical | Access to enrollment sites. | Worked with community partners to select accessible, convenient recruitment and enrollment locations. |
| Long lines to complete enrollment. | Tiered sign-up times; self-sign up. | |
| Technological | Data collection reliant on Wi-Fi. | Utilize mobile hotspots or survey software capable of off-line performance. |
| Social | Participant retention and long-term communication. | Conduct widespread recruitment across web, newspapers, radio, and community partners to communicate upcoming study opportunities. Provide routine updates via email, telephone, and community forums. |
| Community context (literacy, distrust, historically underrepresented communities). | Conduct focus groups to determine community concerns and methods of report-back. | |
| NORTHWEST WILDFIRES | ||
| Physical | Shipping delays due to wildfires and evacuations. | Mail kits prior to wildfire season |
| Sample preparation. Severe wildfire smoke contaminated the laboratory, preventing new kit assembly. | Prepare samplers prior to a disaster. | |
| Technological | Real-time identification and characterization of wildfires across multiple states | Utilized publicly available databases and participant feedback on wildfire incidence and severity |
| Internet and Telephone capabilities; rural areas impacted by wildfires had decreased internet and cell phone capability, decreasing communication especially during wildfires. | Verbal completion of questionnaires during limited Internet Written and photographic instructions provided with kits | |
| Training materials | Video, written and photographic instructions provided with kits | |
| Social | Influence of personal and community behaviors on air quality. | Post-study questionnaire captures co-variate data. |
| Participant retention | Rolling recruitment for new participants; flexible deployment dates to accommodate participant schedules. | |
Figure 2
General timeline of community-engaged disaster research (CEnDR) case studies. The disaster duration refers to the initial event and does not encompass disaster recovery. Icons indicate areas of community engagement (forums, outreach via research dissemination), participation (focus groups, data collection), and involvement (community input on study design/methodology).
Figure 3
General sequence for community-engaged disaster research (CEnDR). Community input and knowledge is integrated at study initiation, with transparent data sharing options. While depicted as linear steps, CEnDR exists on a continuum, with responses addressing the immediate disaster through to disaster recovery and preparedness for future disasters.
Table 3
Lessons learned following review of challenges and mitigations specific to the three case studies. Community-engaged disaster research: CEnDR.
| LESSONS LEARNED |
|---|
|