Search

Because of the highly complex nature of chemical and nuclear accidents, efforts aimed at prevention, preparedness and response require the melding of many types of knowledge and the close collaboration of a wide range of professions. Nevertheless, the need for such integration and cooperation is not always strongly emphasized in university-level curricula. As a result, developing professionals have few opportunities to learn and practise unified models of environmental accident management. In an effort to foster a more integrative approach, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA, has launched the “Environmental Disasters” project. The project crosses disciplinary boundaries with respect to both curriculum and enrollment. In terms of curriculum, the project examines chemical and nuclear accidents from a multi-dimensional perspective, considering not only regulatory, scientific and policy issues, but also the public health, social, and psychological implications. In terms of enrollment, the project brings together students from the full range of fields that are involved with environmental accidents, including engineering, public health, public administration, social work, psychology, nursing, communications, medicine, and environmental studies. Emphasizing the need for a collaborative approach, students work in multi-disciplinary teams as they explore theory, case studies and current research. In addition, the student teams develop detailed plans for addressing the effects of a chemical or nuclear disaster. With environmental accidents representing an on-going threat to health and safety, the approach discussed in this article may provide a useful model for environmental disaster education at the university level.

Objectives Understanding and effectively addressing persistent health disparities in minority communities requires a clear picture of members' concerns and priorities. This study was intended to engage residents in urban and rural communities in order to identify environmental health priorities. Specific emphasis was placed on how the communities: defined the term environment; their perceptions of environmental exposures as affecting their health; specific priorities in their communities; and differences in urban versus rural populations. Study design A community-engaged approach was used to develop and implement focus groups and compare environmental health priorities in urban versus rural communities. Methods A total of eight focus groups were conducted: four in rural and four in urban communities. Topics included: defining the term environment; how the environment may affect health; and environmental priorities within their communities, using both open discussion and a predefined list. Data were analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively to identify patterns and trends. Results There were important areas of overlap in priorities between urban and rural communities; both emphasized the importance of the social environment and shared a concern over air pollution from industrial sources. In contrast, for urban focus groups, abandoned houses and their social and physical sequelae were a high priority while concerns about adequate sewer and water services and road maintenance were high priorities in rural communities. Conclusions This study was able to identify environmental health priorities in urban versus rural minority communities. In contrast to some previous risk perception research, the results of this study suggest prioritization of tangible, known risks in everyday life instead of rare, disaster-related events, even in communities that have recently experienced devastating damage from tornadoes. The findings can help inform future efforts to study, understand and effectively address environmental issues, and are particularly relevant to developing effective community-based strategies in vulnerable populations.