1. Presentation: December 16, 2003 California Integrated Waste Management Board Waste Facilities, Environmental Justice, and Community Participation

2. Agenda for Today’s Session The context for community perceptions and environmental justice Best practices and emerging themes in community engagement in environmental justice

3. Context: Environmental Inequity in California There is an established pattern of inequity by race and income for various environmental “negatives” in California. Studies on:  Transfer, storage and disposal facilities  Toxic release inventory sites  Respiratory risk indices from cumulative exposure layers

4. For Example: Pattern of TRI Facilities by Ethnicity, 2000

5. Demographics and Environment

6. Environmental Inequity Recognized by Californians

7. This Sets the Context for Participation with Environmental Agencies

8. Including CIWMB and Its Regulation of Landfills, Transfer Stations, and Waste Tire Recyclers

11. Empirical Analysis Recall our basic findings:

12. Empirical Analysis Recall our basic findings:  Transfers and waste tire sites are very unevenly distributed by race and income

13. Empirical Analysis Recall our basic findings:  Transfers and waste tire sites are very unevenly distributed by race and income

14.  Landfills/solid waste disposal seem more equitably located – but perceptions linger based in part on unregulated sites Empirical Analysis

15.  Landfills/solid waste disposal seem more equitably located – but perceptions linger based in part on unregulated sites Empirical Analysis

16. The Complex View: Multivariate Analysis Multivariate analysis: controlling for the effects of several variables such as income and population density Upon your suggestion, also controlled for urbanization

17. Upon Your Suggestion, We Controlled for Urban Area

18. Waste Facility Data Conclusions  Further analysis still supports the notion that there is inequitable proximity  Even where support in the data is weaker, perceptions of inequitable proximity persist  Better outreach and improved community voice could help with both the reality and the perception

19. Connecting with the Community

20. Who was contacted….  Activists and advocates  Neighborhood and grassroots organizations  US EPA staff  Public participation professionals in Cal EPA, other agencies and outside government

21. CONTEXT for community participation: Participation is built through conflict and collaboration. Areas for participation: needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement and evaluation.

22. CONTEXT for community participation: There is often a disconnect between what the community hears and understands AND the authority and messages of multi- tiered agencies.

23. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION COMMUNITY INPUT COMMUNITY USE Involvement in processes Program Utilization Information Capacity Connected Engagement

24.  Education of all stakeholders will further community capacity and participation.  Communities want and need more information to better participate.  Technical assistance may be necessary for those with greater needs. TOOLS for improving community participation: Education

25. TOOLS for improving community participation: Marketing  Know your audience  A public relations approach to "marketing" or simply disseminating information may not capture the public.  Authentic outreach means communicating, dialog, and engagement with the public.

26. TOOLS for improving community participation: Diversity Not all communities are the same, they have different assets and needs. Targeted and/or prioritized efforts in monitoring, outreach, programming, etc. can help to further EJ work and community participation

27. OUTCOME of the work Recognizable results, such as complaint resolution protocols and advisory groups, will be important to build community buy-in. These actions lead to authentic participation.

28. Some recommended tools/mechanisms Accessible use of technology Technical Outreach Services for Communities Stakeholder Advisory Groups Community-Specific Research Complaint Resolution Protocols Public Participation Guide

29. We learned from the research…. Initial best practice research from across the country is consistent with what we have heard in California

30. We learned from the research…. Quality participation….is good business

31. Questions?