National Academies Press: OpenBook

Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment (2004)

Chapter: Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion

« Previous: Chapter 7 - Transportation User Effects
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 196
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 197
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 198
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 199
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 200
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 201
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 202
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 203
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 204
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 205
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 206
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 207
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 208
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 209
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 210
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 8 - Community Cohesion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 211

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

199 CHAPTER 8. COMMUNITY COHESION OVERVIEW Community cohesion is the term that describes the social network and actions that provide satisfaction, security, camaraderie, support, and identity to members of a community or neighborhood. Of all the environmental justice issues related to implementation of transportation projects, this one may be the most difficult to address because it is hard to find a practical way of predicting the impact of projects on community cohesion. Though this issue may be viewed as primarily psychological, it is very much a part of the day-to-day experience and behavior of people. For many people, community cohesion is essential to the success of family life, contributes to feelings of satisfaction and fulfillment in community life, and provides a sense of security. Estimating changes in community cohesion relies heavily on the researcher’s experience and common sense judgment, as well as on the quality of public discussion and involvement. An analysis of community cohesion is inherently inexact; and a flexible, give-and-take approach to public involvement in estimating these effects is necessary. Because transportation projects have impacts on community cohesion that “may be beneficial or adverse, and may include splitting neighborhoods, isolating a portion of a neighborhood or an ethnic group…or separating residents from community facilities…” (FHWA 1987, p. 17), it is important not to dismiss or overlook these impacts. Understanding impacts starts with defining the impact area, which is not always obvious. STATE OF THE PRACTICE Assessing the likely effects of a proposed transportation project on community cohesion is a blend of public discussion and careful analysis. This effort commonly involves five steps. Step 1 – Define the impact area. Defining the impact area begins with an understanding of the approximate boundaries of the affected community or neighborhood. Though each community or neighborhood needs to be defined in the context of the perceptions and everyday realities of the people living there, the impact area will assume a distinctive physical space with boundaries. Determining the impact area requires developing an intimate relationship with the affected neighborhood, in particular with community leaders, in addition to tapping the knowledge of city staff and the general public, when appropriate. Although each impact area will have its own characteristics, four possible scenarios are anticipated: 1. The area is constrained by its geography. In such a case, the inhabited area is bounded by a wide area of undeveloped land or by a land use activity other than residential (such as industrial) or a very different kind of residential development. In such a case, the geographically defined area is the impact area.

200 2. There is a cluster of residences, businesses, and other social amenities that are predominantly owned, occupied, or used by low-income or minority populations. Though such a formation readily lends itself to defining the impact area, there may also be important facilities that foster a sense of community and contribute to community cohesion located outside the cluster-area. These facilities may include houses of worship, schools, and places of recreation and should be considered part of the community. 3. There are multiple clusters of low-income or minority residences and businesses located in a large geographic area that is well defined. In such a case, it is important to ascertain the level of cohesion that exists between clusters. It is reasonable to assume that the clusters nearest to each other are most connected and those farthest apart are less connected, but such may not always be the case. 4. The low-income or minority households are dispersed in a broad geographic area among households of a higher income level or some other larger ethnic group. In this case, defining the impact area could be difficult. However, determining the level of interaction that takes place between persons living within the geographic area can greatly contribute to identifying alternatives that preserve the overall cohesion and stability of the community. Understanding the dynamics of community cohesion among protected groups requires recognition that, even among homogeneous minority groups, the level of cohesion can vary significantly. One factor in this variability may be income. If only part of a large homogenous minority community is affected by a project, it may be more appropriate to use level of income as the basis for decision-making rather than ethnicity. Consideration of distributive effects would then be based on a comparison of project-related costs borne by low-income earners relative to high-income earners. Research shows that the spatial sphere of social activities among low-income earners is much smaller that that of high-income earners, largely because they tend to have a greater proportion of family and/or friends residing near their places of residence (Donnelly and Majka 1996, p. 270). This often leads to strong community cohesion among low-income groups. In addition, residents with similar economic status and lifestyle patterns are more likely to interact with each other and form strong bonds (Donnelly and Majka, 1996, p. 271). Therefore, it is reasonable to also expect social networking among the wealthier even though the characteristics of this networking may differ somewhat from that which takes place among the less wealthy. Step 2 – Collect information. Community leaders and civic groups can provide valuable information because of their first-hand knowledge about the important social institutions in the community, important activity centers and gathering spots, and other features that bind the community together. They can identify community characteristics that are not apparent to an outsider charged with evaluating the community cohesion effects of a transportation project. Their participation also lends credibility to the analysis. But experience suggests that greater, community-wide participation is needed if projects, particularly those that significantly alter the spatial composition of the impact area, are to win the approval of a majority of affected community members.

201 The step of collecting information is an excellent point at which to start involving community members because it gives them a sense of being part of the creative process of the project and not merely the recipients of a plan devised elsewhere. Failure to involve members of the community raises the likelihood that the project may be resisted, with possible negative effects. Discussions of the issue of resistance and strategies to gain community participation also follow. Step 3 – Spend time in the study area. To evaluate social networks and to estimate how a transportation project might affect those networks, you must get to know the study area. Site walks and visits to special community centers and gathering spots can provide important insights for evaluating community cohesion effects. While spending time in the area, information may be collected through visual observation and informal discussion, and photographs may be taken of community facilities, shops, services, and recreation facilities. These photographs can be very useful in public meetings and workshops. Being in the study area also facilitates a more formal site analysis for evaluating relocation effects, as detailed in Forkenbrock and Weisbrod (2001, p.103-104). Step 4 – Estimate the existing level of community cohesion. Secondary data about personal attitudes and social networking in a particular neighborhood generally do not exist. As a result, first-person interviews and workshops are necessary to gain information about community cohesion in the study area. Block-level census data that identify areas of relative demographic homogeneity can substitute (albeit, not always very well) for primary survey data or can be used to extrapolate from information collected in the field. You can also map the results of the interviews and surveys to locate community facilities and to identify blocks or clusters of blocks that show relatively high levels of cohesiveness. Step 5 – Predict the project’s effects on areas of relative cohesiveness. Most existing analytic methods provide little predictive information about how social networking within a community may change in response to a transportation project. With input and discussion from community stakeholders, however, it is possible to identify ways that the project may discourage (e.g., by increasing traffic on neighborhood streets) or enhance (e.g., by providing new pedestrian access across existing facilities) opportunities for community interaction. Because major transportation projects can create barriers to community cohesion, dialogue with members of the affected community is the most effective way of identifying the nature and magnitude of the hindrance to cohesion. This dialogue is also the most practical way to develop an understanding of the most effective and feasible mitigation measures. How much the project affects existing levels of accessibility and how it alters the current living environment are important factors in predicting a project’s effects on community cohesion. Suggested communication strategies In the previous description of the five steps for estimating the probable effects of a transportation project on community cohesion, we noted the importance of effective interaction with the public.

202 Below are several suggested approaches and specific considerations that should be taken into account regardless of the selected approach. Be attentive to possible resistance. It is possible that implementing any transportation project will have some impact on community cohesion. Being able to understand the nature of community cohesion, and to predict the level of impact the project will have on it provides a basis for considering the degree of resistance that can be anticipated. Accordingly, you gauge the amount of effort needed to involve community members early on in formulating alternative strategies for project implementation, including the “no-action” alternative. Awareness of the nature of the impact on cohesion also helps you consider the type and extent of mitigation and/or compensation that may be required to complete a project. In general, the greater the impact in the presence of a strongly cohesive community, the greater the mitigation and/or compensation required. Select an appropriate communication strategy. Before looking at the methods for involving community members, it is important to consider systemic barriers to participation. Language could be a barrier for individuals whose first language is not English. Outreach and literature therefore should be prepared in the language(s) of residents of the affected community, and translators provided to assist at meetings. Another barrier is fear of speaking before a large group. In such a case, it may be necessary to set up a spokesperson who can read the written comments of those who do not wish to speak. It is important to keep in mind that the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 28.1 Sec.35.130 requires the state or local government unit to ensure that individuals with disabilities are not “excluded from participation in or…denied the benefits of the…activities of [the] public entity.” The time schedule of public meetings may also hinder participation, so two or more meetings at different times may be required. It may also be necessary to underwrite the cost of child care for low-income individuals who show an early interest in participating in the collaborative processes. A good discussion of techniques for communicating with members of affected populations is presented by Barnard and Lall (1998) in their publication titled, “We’ve Got to Stop Meeting Like This: 36 Ways to Encourage Civic Participation.” We draw on their ideas in the discussion that follows. The objective of the methods outlined in this section is twofold: (1) to gain the fullest possible community participation and (2) to arrive at the best choice of alternatives for implementing public transportation projects. The methods are ranked according to the predicted level of community cohesion, the anticipated intensity of the impacts of the project on it, and the size of the community (see Table 8-1). These three factors must be weighed together when selecting a strategy. The communication methods suggested in Table 8-1 offer flexibility and an opportunity to match scarce resources, financial and otherwise, with the goal of achieving the desired outcome—i.e., the fullest possible level of participation by affected residents—given unique circumstances.

203 The effectiveness of each of these communication strategies is directly related to the amount of effort exerted to organize the forum and the skill of the facilitator in guiding the discussion of the agenda items. Greater success is likely if participants receive written information about the issues before the meeting. The information packet should contain a full disclosure of the costs and benefits of each alternative for implementing the project, including the “no action” alternative. You should clearly identify the preferred choice. The possible adverse impacts associated with each alternative, along with proposed recommendations for mitigating them, should also be presented in a neutral manner and in language familiar to community members. In addition, each alternative may include a number of arguments for and against it. Because the task of the facilitator includes motivating and controlling, it is important that the person be well trained and competent. Table 8-1. Community participation strategies Scale of: Communication methods Cohesion Impacts Focus group1, 2a Fish bowl2a Charrette2b Nominal group workshop2b Weak Weak  Weak Moderate   Weak Strong  Moderate Weak Moderate Moderate   Moderate Strong   Strong Weak  Strong Moderate   Strong Strong  1. A stratified random selection of participants is recommended when cohesion is dispersed. 2. Useful when there are dispersed pockets of cohesion a. Most appropriate for small- to medium-size communities. b. Most appropriate for medium- to large-size communities. Focus groups are adequate for situations where only a few people are willing to participate or where community cohesion is so strong that the community feels that a few knowledgeable persons could represent the majority view. Because a focus group usually involves six to eight people, this method is also well suited to small communities in which cohesion is weak to moderate, and where a weak-to-moderate project impact is expected. In addition, it may be useful in medium-size communities where cohesion is strong. A random selection of participants, particularly one that is stratified, can ensure that all sectors of society are adequately represented.

204 Fish bowls are so named because in the initial portion of the consultation, the researcher plays a passive, observing role as the discussion takes place. Like the focus group, the fish bowl is applicable to small- and medium-size communities and in situations where a larger group of interested participants is expected to observe the discussion. These observers usually are unclear or undecided about the project and its impacts on the community, and so wish to listen to the views and ideas of others before forming their own opinion. At the end of the “formal” discussion, the facilitator should invoke a response from observers either vocally or in writing. Charrettes (for full description, see pages 302-304) are useful when dealing with medium-large communities and are frequently used by planners. They are appropriate when the moderate-to- strong nature of anticipated impacts is expected to draw significant attention from residents nurturing a moderate level of cohesion. From 50 to 100 people can be expected to participate in the discussion. As a consequence, many charrettes are day-long events that require a facilitator who is very knowledgeable about group process and is able to motivate all attendees to participate. Nominal group workshops are also suited for medium-to-large communities, particularly where cohesion is strong and the predicted impacts are medium to strong. This is a good strategy in communities where polarization of racial or group interests can lead to tense situations; it ensures that all interests are heard in a well-organized manner. After a briefing by the planning staff about the project and the impacts associated with each alternative, participants are asked to fill out a card (with staff assistance, as necessary) stating their major issues of concern regarding each alternative and what make the issues important to them. Participants are then assigned to small groups (four to seven persons), along with a resource person from the relevant planning authority. Each individual in the group is given a chance to voice his or her issues of concern with arguments related to each alternative. The resource person provides group members with information that enhances the discussion. The facilitator records all of the highlighted issues and pro and con arguments on a flip chart for all group members to see. Afterward, the large group is reassembled and the flip charts displayed. A reasonable time is given for their perusal, then participants are asked to vote on the alternatives, including the no-action alternative. The chosen alternatives are ranked according to the ballot count for further discussion, which is mediated by the workshop facilitator. Persons are asked to lobby for and against each alternative, after which a final vote is taken to decide which alternative should be adopted. Resources needed. Table 8-2 presents a summary of the comparative costs associated with the various approaches discussed above. As with many other worthwhile public exercises, time, funds, organization, and resources are required to achieve community participation. Table 8-2 provides estimates of the amount of time involved in staging a discussion forum. Time here refers to the length of the discussion period, as well as the time it takes to prepare materials, notify the participants, and complete all other organizational arrangements. Expenses include the out-of-pocket costs associated with arranging and staging the discussion forum, as well as the cost of training or hiring a facilitator. Preparing and staging any forum requires organization, but as with time, each method calls for a varying level of financial commitment, as Table 8-2 indicates. Likewise, because each communication strategy is intended to fit a community and a

205 project with specific characteristics, resource requirements vary among methods. Resources consist of the persons involved at each stage of planning, organizing, outreach, and staging of the discussion forum, and include such things as stationery, models, vehicles, equipment, and procurement of the venue. Table 8-2. Requirements for community participation strategies Communication method Time Expense Organization Resources Focus group Low Low Medium Low Fish bowl Medium Low Low Low-Medium Charrette High Medium Low High Nominal group workshop High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Source: Barnard and Lall 1998. SELECTING AN APPROPRIATE METHOD OF ANALYSIS It is not always easy to accurately assess the current level of community cohesion in an area that would be affected by a proposed transportation project, and it is even more difficult to predict the project’s likely effect on cohesion. Described below are seven basic indicators that a project could adversely affect community cohesion. The predictive power of each indicator is dependent on the characteristics of the impact area, the intensity of community cohesion, and the nature of the transportation project. In general, the greater the number of predictors present, the greater the likelihood that the project will impact the community. The magnitude of each of these predictors will also determine the level of impact. Creation of a physical barrier. Any project that divides the community constitutes a physical barrier and will be offensive to members. However, the extent of the disruption caused by the barrier is very important and may be gauged by examining the level of interdependence between members of what will be the two “newly created” neighborhoods. For example, if the project separates many residents from popular meeting places, cohesion will be negatively affected. In addition, a project may constitute a physical barrier if it makes travel in the neighborhood more stressful, especially for the elderly and disabled, thereby discouraging movement between residents’ homes and to and from regular congregational centers. For example, a significant change in the gradient of a sidewalk could cause such a barrier. Change in travel time. This is best understood by comparing the difference in time it takes to go between several points in the neighborhood. First, the planner should take timed journeys on foot, covering routes that are routinely traveled and varying the pace of travel so as to have some appreciation of travel time for both the young and elderly. Then, with the knowledge of where spatial changes to the neighborhood environment are intended, simulate the journeys between the same origins and destinations using a computer software program, such as TransCAD (see Chapter 7).

206 Disruption of access to neighborhood/community child care facility. Access to various parts of a neighborhood is often important for reasons other than recreation. Low-income and minority households tend to rely on each other for support in areas such as transportation, preparation of meals, and child supervision and care. Child care facilities, particularly private homes of residents, are especially important in communities where there is a large proportion of women of child-bearing age and several extended family units exist. Thus, any disruption of access, whether temporary or permanent, can result in significant stress on affected households. Gathering accurate information on how many households would be affected and the extent to which they are dependent on such a service is necessary. Households that are strongly dependent may be classified as those that rely on this service more than 4 days per week; moderately dependent if used 3 to 4 days per week; and weakly dependent if less than 3 days per week. Increased risk of physical injury. Increased risk of injury leads to frustration, particularly for the elderly and for small children, along with their guardians or caregivers, because of the challenges involved in moving around the district. Projects that significantly change the gradient of streetscapes, widen roads, alter the elevation of the road relative to buildings, and create steep drop-offs from the roadway to the existing terrain, all increase the risk of injury. Knowing the design of the proposed project and the changes that will be made to the existing topography, particularly to the streetscape, children’s play areas, entrances and exits, is essential to understanding the magnitude of the risk of injury the project will generate. This knowledge is most useful when combined with data about the number of elderly and children living in or frequenting the spatially altered area. Generally, most of the risk may be removed by careful adjustments to the design of the project. Decreased accessibility to usual congregational centers. Decreased accessibility may reduce the frequency with which neighbors attend gatherings and thus strike at the heart of community involvement and cohesion. Furthermore, if a group leader’s access to the regular meeting-place is curtailed by the project, the functioning of the entire group may be significantly hampered, possibly leading to its dissolution. Having a clear idea as to how the project design affects access to usual congregational centers is therefore important. Accessibility may be diminished by a physical barrier, by an increase in travel time to and from the center, or by an increased risk of injury, all of which are dealt with above. Altered spatial arrangement discourages participation, which is important to community cohesion. As a consequence, project design factors that inhibit participation in any form must be of concern. Steps, as outlined above, can be taken to measure such impacts. Increased noise level. Any transportation project that increases the number of vehicles on a roadway through or adjacent to a neighborhood or increases the average speed of those vehicles will raise the level of noise in the area. A new railway line presents a similar challenge. A sudden rise in traffic noise means that members of the affected community must exert more effort to communicate by speaking more loudly. It also means that radios, television sets, and other commonly used audio devices have to be played at higher volumes for persons to derive the same level of satisfaction and understanding that they previously enjoyed. Not only is communication made more difficult, but also it is a natural response to try to avoid the additional exertion required to communicate. At the same time, the combined increase in noise from the

207 traffic and domestic electronic devices could contribute to hearing loss over time, compromising the health of individuals and their ability to enjoy their living environment. METHODS Table 8-3 provides a brief summary of the methods presented in this chapter. Table 8-3. Summary of methods for analyzing community cohesion Method Assessment level Appropriate uses Use when Data needs Expertise required 1. Focus groups Screening Assess current level of cohesion; identify sensitive issues Low Group facilitation 2. Personal interviews Screening Assess current level of cohesion; identify sensitive issues Low Conduct interviews 3. Deliberative polling Screening/ detailed Assess current level of cohesion; identify sensitive issues Planning phase when project may impact community cohesion Low Television production; polling techniques 4. Travel demand models with geographic information systems (GIS) Detailed Estimate travel demand (TD) between census blocks Planning phase when project may impact community cohesion and a high level of detail required High Standard travel demand modeling; census data analysis; GIS 5. Stop watch and distance wheel Screening/ detailed Evaluate pedestrian travel times and distances Planning phase when a project may impact community cohesion Low None Method 1. Focus groups to identify interaction patterns To adequately understand the desired spatial linkages of a particular area of the community, there is no substitute for directly communicating with members of the affected area. When to use. Focus groups are a practical means of gaining an understanding of how cohesive an area of the community is, how dependent this cohesiveness is on specific types of interaction, and the spatial extent of common patterns of interaction. If there is a potential for spatial disruption of an area of the community, especially one occupied by minority populations and low-income populations, focus groups are a sensible means for acquiring information that can be useful in designing the project or mitigating unwanted impacts.

208 Analysis. When community cohesion is the concern, a one-size-fits-all approach is certainly not appropriate. Rather, a series of issues and concerns should be addressed, some of which cut across most possible types of projects and others that may or may not apply in a particular instance. First, participants of the focus group should help define the perimeters of the area of the community of concern. Then, they should be asked about frequency of trips and important destinations in the environment that could potentially be affected by the proposed transportation project. Once the spatial nature of the affected population is deduced, potential impacts can be discussed in terms of how they may affect community cohesion. Earlier in this chapter, various types of impacts were briefly discussed. We now translate them into a series of questions that can be used in the focus group discussion: 1. Would a physical barrier be created between members of the community? 2. Would the travel time to residences of close friends living in the community increase? 3. Would access to any neighborhood/community child care facility be diminished? 4. Would the risk of physical injury increase to those accessing regular meeting places, houses of worship, community centers, recreation centers, open spaces, and other common congregation sites? 5. Would there be a decrease in accessibility to usual congregational centers? 6. Would any changes in the spatial arrangement of community activities discourage participation in these activities? 7. Would increased noise levels reduce residents’ ability to communicate outdoors? 8. Would changes to the visual aesthetic environment in the community make it less desirable for community members to spend time outdoors in places where persons often congregate? 9. Would persons feel like their community ties would be broken if they were relocated to other nearby housing or to another neighborhood? 10. Would a reduction in open spaces, such as parks or undeveloped parcels cause residents to spend less time with their neighbors or other community members? 11. Would allowing mixed commercial/residential development or nearby commercial/industrial development cause residents to feel that their community has been changed in a significant manner? Data needs, assumptions, and limitations. Focus groups provide opportunities for open-ended responses and discussions that are typically not possible in surveys. The groups are usually small—often not more than six or eight persons. They are thus typically used when the need for detailed information outweighs the need for statistical analysis. Focus groups are desirable when agencies are in the exploratory phase; often the information gathered can be used in later research. The most important considerations in forming focus groups are the following: • Ensure that minority populations and low-income populations are properly represented.

209 • Select people whose activities would be in the area likely to be affected by the project. • Include representatives of nearby businesses that serve the affected area. • Include people whose responsibilities extend to members of the affected population, such as school administrators, parks and recreation staff, public safety personnel, neighborhood leaders, and human service staff. • Enlist the services of a facilitator who is known to, and trusted by, the participants. A member of the clergy, for example, may be a possibility. Results and their presentation. The central purpose of focus groups is to acquire a clear understanding of the general attitudes, concerns, and preferences of minority populations and low-income populations regarding a proposed transportation project. The results can be used to help assess whether the project would have a generally positive or negative effect on the well being of these populations. They can also help to identify changes in the project or measures that could be taken to mitigate undesirable effects. Often, the analysis of data gathered in focus groups involves summarizing responses for the population. For environmental justice analyses, responses will typically be summarized by geographic area, income, or race. This requires that data be collected on locations of participants (firms or households) and on income or race for individuals or for firm owners, employees, and clientele. Assessment. If carried out well, focus groups can provide first-hand information on the distributive impacts of transportation projects, and the results can be used to modify the project or to design mitigation measures. A delicate balance must be achieved, however, between providing the focus group sufficient information to foster a productive discussion, while being careful not to lead the group to conclusions. Method 2. Personal interviews Fully involving stakeholders by conducting personal interviews with them provides the basis for acquiring a sound understanding of the potential issues and perceived impacts from the community’s perspective. A good place to start selecting appropriate people to interview is with identified community leaders. When to use. Personal interviews are especially helpful early on in an effort to assess the approximate geographic area of concern and the current extent of cohesiveness in the area. Questions can then be asked regarding the common activity space of the affected populations to gain insight into how the proposed transportation project would affect community cohesion. Analysis. A community leader can be anyone who is both knowledgeable about the community and its issues or objectives and who exercises some influence over others within the community. Ideally, the individual should have lived in the community for several years. Potential subjects include religious leaders, school principals, local business owners, recreation center organizers, executive members of community organizations or neighborhood associations, or owners of child care facilities. Those persons contacted initially may also be asked to name others who

210 could contribute to the research. Social welfare personnel responsible for persons in the community may also provide some useful information about the community’s networking system. Predictors of level of impact that should be addressed in personal interviews include the following: (1) extent to which the completed project would act as a barrier; (2) changes in accessibility to usual congregational centers; (3) effects on the spatial arrangement of functions and probable effects on participation in community, commercial, and cultural activities; and (4) changes in travel time to residences of close friends living in the community or displaced from the community. These interviews do not lend themselves to statistical analysis or measurement, but they provide perhaps the richest source of available information related to community cohesion issues. One needs to review the information collected and develop a catalog of potential effects. This can take the form of a list or database. The database might include information on the type of activity or facility affected, the location of that facility, the location of the affected population, and the utilization of the facility. Using this database, and with help from community leaders and residents, one can then begin to identify the most critical effects, as well as potential mitigation measures. Data needs, assumptions, and limitations. To collect information using personal interviews, two initial steps must occur. First, you must identify interview subjects; second, a questionnaire or interview guide must be designed. With personal interviews, the information collection protocol should be loosely structured, with open-ended questions that allow for follow-on discussion. Often it is through discussion, not structured questions, that real concerns regarding community cohesion effects are uncovered. Subjects that should be addressed in the interviews include the following: • Location of community-serving stores and services; • Location of community service facilities such as houses of worship, senior centers, day care centers, and youth centers; • Location of community recreation facilities and parks; • Special populations served by these facilities and their location within the community; • Identification of pedestrian pathways and commonly traveled routes; and • Other issues specific to the community and relevant to community cohesion that might not be known until the interview process begins. Results and their presentation. Personal interviews are a valuable means of learning about the nature of community cohesion among protected populations in the area likely to be affected by a proposed transportation project. These can interviews help the researcher identify sensitive issues that will need to be addressed fully and carefully. Well-advised design modifications and mitigation measures can then be devised. It is very good practice to present a summary of the insights gained to local community and neighborhood leaders. These leaders can then validate the findings and offer suggestions as to

211 how the results can most accurately be interpreted. Working with them also strengthens one’s association with them and keeps the lines of communication open. Assessment. Personal interviews offer a rich perspective as to the perceptions of members of minority and low-income populations regarding their community and how a proposed transportation project would affect it. These perceptions should be related to objective data on distances and travel time to important functions. Of course, without the personal interviews it would be difficult to know what all these functions are or where they take place. In a sense, then, it is wise to regard the personal interviews as one critical step in the process of understanding how a project would affect the daily living space of protected populations. Method 3. Deliberative polling This technique is designed to incorporate the best characteristics of polling and television and apply them to facilitate community engagement. Whereas town hall meetings tend to attract the most engaged citizens, who often already have well-established opinions, deliberative polls seek to bring participants of diverse backgrounds together with the objective of broadening the extent to which citizens become part of the planning process. The technique has certain features in common with a charrette. When to use. This method is especially appropriate when there is concern that a proposed transportation project could adversely affect community cohesion. In this process, a stratified random sample of citizens is brought together for one or two days to discuss the proposed project. The stratified random sampling process ensures that women and men, minority and low- income groups are represented in numbers equal to their proportion in the affected population. Analysis. The random sample of residents is brought together for one or two days. After completing a survey, participants are briefed on issues related to the possible impacts of the project. The briefings should contain a full disclosure of the costs and benefits of each alternative for the project, including the “no action” alternative and identifying the preferred one. Of great importance is a description of the possible adverse impacts (economic, social, cultural, and environmental) that could affect the cohesiveness of the community and the quality of life within it. Possible means for addressing and mitigating any impacts that participants determine to be significant can be presented. Each alternative may include a number of opposing opinions for and against it. The issues in the deliberative materials should be presented in a neutral and unbiased manner, with care given to the language and expression used so as to ensure that the participants, coming from all walks of life, obtain a sufficient grasp of the issues involved. After studying the materials, the group of residents is given an opportunity to ask questions of experts, including those from interest groups. The fully briefed and informed participants then take part in a televised session for broader dissemination of the relevant issues and ways to address them. During the television session, members of the public are given contact information for each member of the group so that, within 24 hours after the session airs, they may communicate their concerns on any issue to the group member with whom they feel the greatest connection.

212 Later, a second televised session is convened and begins with the local planning department providing a summary of the pros and cons, costs and benefits of each alternative and any suggested modifications that arose out of the discussions and expert testimonies. The citizens involved in the process are then surveyed (polled) to determine if and how their opinions have changed as a result of the discussion process and, ultimately, their most favored alternative. This allows for ranking of the issues as well as the alternatives and provides a broader basis for decision-makers in selecting their course of action. Data needs, assumptions, and limitations. There may be significant expenses involved in this approach including (1) television airtime, (2) transportation of participants, (3) catering for participants, (4) interpreter services (if matter concerns non-English-speaking residents), (5) possible wage/salary compensation for participants, and (6) daycare costs for children of participants. Quite possibly, the television airtime costs will be minimal because such an exercise should be viewed as a public service by the producing station. Working flexibility into the scheduling times for discussion meetings may also reduce wage or salary compensation. A better outcome probably would be achieved, however, if full compensation were given to participants so that they were able to remain focused on the issues before them and to be available to receive feedback from callers. Results and their presentation. Deliberative polling is rooted in the concept that a representative group of local residents can become well informed about the probable impacts of a proposed transportation project. This group of people can then become a practical conduit through which information can be presented to the general public. Analysts can observe the process and learn a great deal about aspects of the project that might jeopardize community cohesion. They can also gain a clear sense of the likely support for modifications to the project or specific mitigation measures. Assessment. Because of the expense involved, this approach to engaging residents may be best suited to implementing high-cost projects and those that are likely to generate considerable popular concern and resistance, particularly where the affected communities are large and where citizen involvement may be problematic. Method 4. Travel demand models with GIS capability An important issue in estimating the effect on community cohesion of a proposed transportation project is how it would affect area residents’ ability to interact. To interact, these residents must be able to move conveniently between desired origin-destination pairs. Newer travel demand models such as TransCAD that have a geographic information system (GIS) interface are useful in measuring changes in distance and travel time between places of importance to affected residents. Preferably, census-block data should be used and the existing road geometry, including local streets and avenues, must be accurately input into the model and matched with the census data. When to use. This method is most appropriate in cases where the project would be sizable and may impact a relatively large community of residents, including protected populations. While the travel demand model cannot be expected to estimate microscale impacts, it can give a general

213 approximation of the extent to which movement to and from specific areas of concern would be affected. If such movement would be inhibited, an adverse effect on community cohesion is a potential result. Analysis. The method here is much the same as that outlined in Chapter 7, Method 2, Adaptation of transportation demand models. In that method, traffic analysis zones (TAZs) are defined based on protected and nonprotected group criteria using census-block data. Travel times and distances traveled by those most sensitive to change—including the elderly and mothers with infants and preschool children among protected groups—should be a major concern. The focus here is on changes in distance traveled and travel time between regularly traversed points within the community or to destinations close to the community. Change is observed by first running the model and recording times and distances under existing conditions and then comparing these results with those obtained from a second running of the model that yields projected times and distances that reflect the impact of the intended transportation project. Any significant deterioration in travel time or extended distance to be traveled may be considered as a potential environmental justice problem because it makes the affected individuals worse off. However, it is only through consultation with community members that a meaningful conclusion regarding the nature and magnitude of such a problem can be ascertained. The travel demand analysis, therefore, should be regarded as an initial approximation of travel time and distance impacts. Also, it may be found that what is intolerable or offensive to one group may be acceptable to another group, and so the extent of mitigation methods required may differ considerably. Data needs, assumptions, and limitations. The data required for this approach are quite similar to those needed for other routine travel analyses. The distinguishing assumption here is that persons in the area of interest may have to travel relatively long distances compared to those in smaller communities to access child care, shopping centers, community and recreation centers, places of worship, and schools. Consequently, they drive their own vehicles, carpool, or use public transit quite frequently. Thus, information on what percentage of the population in each TAZ has regular access to a private vehicle is important, as well as what proportion relies primarily on transit services. This method is limited in that it does not take adequate account of persons who use nonmotorized transportation. Consequently, this method may be combined with the following method, which is better suited to walkable communities. Results and their presentation. Evaluation of the tabulated results representing before and after scenarios is made convenient by the output derived from travel demand models. The additional ability of these models to graphically portray the results using GIS capabilities is a further asset because the visual representation facilitates discussion as well as joint decision-making by professional planners and stakeholders. After identifying potential problem areas, the GIS technology further enables the focus to shift towards mitigation measures that are agreeable to various parties. In situations where changes impact a significant number of persons who walk, the results obtained from the method that follows may be combined with the tabular results generated by travel demand models to ascertain the overall magnitude of the change in travel time or distance traveled. Assessment. This is a reasonably accurate method for determining actual changes in travel time and distances, and it could be easily adopted by many planning departments without any

214 significant increase in costs because of the ubiquitous use of travel demand models. For those using the state version of the Highway Economic Requirements Model (HERS-ST), a unique roadway identifier may be used with the database and a beginning and ending log mile to allow the model’s output to be attached to a geographic (GIS) mapping system using a routing system and dynamic segmentation. Planning departments that currently use activity-based models that can generate even more accurate results should also conduct dual scenario analyses as described above. Activity-based models also facilitate GIS mapping of results. Method 5. Stop watch and distance wheel After extensive discussions have taken place with minority and low-income populations in the area that would be affected by the transportation project, simple methods are appropriate to estimate the changes in accessibility that may result. Specifically, once these residents have indicated which of their important destinations would become less easy to reach, you should estimate how great the impact would be. You also should evaluate the efficacy of possible mitigation measures. This very basic method entails use of a stopwatch for measuring travel time and an engineer’s distance wheel for measuring the distance traveled between origins and destinations on a small scale. When to use. If the project impact area is relatively small and involves a clearly defined geographic area, changes in the distances that must be traveled can be assessed using this method. Greater distances and travel times between essential activities within an area can be disruptive to community cohesion. Analysis. This method is best applied in two phases: the first dealing with existing conditions and the second forecasting project impacts. In order to become more aware of how an intended project would affect the most sensitive groups in the community, average travel times between important points—residences, schools, daycare facilities, neighborhood shopping centers, community and recreation centers, and places of worship—are recorded. As could be expected, one needs to have intimate first-hand knowledge of the community and to walk the routes regularly traversed with timer and distance wheel in hand. Estimates of changes in times and distances likely to be caused by the intended project can be computed based on plans and graphs, and a comparison made with the outcome obtained under existing conditions. Significant deviations can then be identified and used in discussions with affected residents. Data needs, assumptions, and limitations. Information on the location of important places relative to residences may be obtained directly from residents or through an analysis of GIS maps of the area configured at the census-block-group level; a combination of both may be even more helpful. Times and distances under existing conditions are recorded using the abovementioned pieces of equipment. The primary assumption is that the facilities that contribute significantly to community cohesion and connectivity are within walking distance of residents. One advantage of this method is that it can be adapted to take into account shortcuts that may have been created by pedestrians over time and any associated impacts of the intended project. The most obvious limitation of this method is its reliance upon computed estimates of changes in travel time that may be somewhat susceptible to human error.

215 Results and their presentation. Results may be displayed in tabular form along with sketches and maps produced for engineering and planning purposes. Photographs may also be used in discussion sessions to aid understanding and decision-making. Because most persons are able to comprehend changes in time more easily than changes in distances, every effort should be made to convert distance changes to travel time units using the average walking speeds obtained during the first phase of this method. Assessment. This is a relatively simple and low-cost method of assessing the impact of a proposed project on the accessibility of residents in a community that includes protected populations. This method may also be combined with the previous one to effect greater accuracy in decision-making. As stated before, accessibility is one of the key factors that affects communication and connectivity between members of such populations, factors that are central to the presence, strength, and level of community cohesion. RESOURCES The following documents are guides that provide readers with further information regarding the methods and techniques recommended in this chapter. A short description follows each title; it draws its text from the summary or introduction provided. 1) Babbie, Earl. 2000. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. This textbook provides insights into the measurement and interpretation of aspects of social reality. Specifically, it provides guidance on the construction of questionnaires and the evaluation and analysis of survey results. 2) Barnard, Kara, and Samita Lall. 1998. “We’ve Got To Stop Meeting Like This: 36 Ways To Encourage Civic Participation.” Toronto Health City Office, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Available at http://www.unchs.org/cdrom/governance/html/yellop31.htm>http://www.unchs. org/cdrom/governance/html/yellop31.htm. This report is a reference for governments, organizations and agencies to assist them in gaining greater public participation in decision-making. It provides a variety of methods for engaging the public and discusses barriers to participation, both physical and perceived. 3) U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. 1998. “Accessible Elements and Spaces: Scope and Technical Requirements.” Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. Washington, DC. Section 4. Available at http://www2.bc.cc.ca.us/supportiveservices/ada_text.htm. This link provides technical information on standards for constructing transportation facilities as required under the American for Disabilities Act (ADA). The focus is on aspects related to accessibility.

216 REFERENCES Donnelly, Patrick G., and Theo J. Majka. 1996. “Change, Cohesion, and Commitment in a Diverse Urban Neighborhood.” Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 269-285. Federal Highway Administration. 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(F) Documents. FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A (October 30). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Forkenbrock, David J., and Glen E. Weisbrod. 2001. Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects. NCHRP Report 456. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Also available at http://trb.org/trb/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_456-a.pdf.

Next: Chapter 9 - Economic Development »
Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment is designed to enhance understanding and to facilitate consideration and incorporation of environmental justice into all elements of the transportation planning process, from long-range transportation systems planning through priority programming, project development, and policy decisions. The report offers practitioners an analytical framework to facilitate comprehensive assessments of a proposed transportation project’s impacts on affected populations and communities.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!