This study examines community perceptions of, responses to, and ways of contesting environmental and occupational health risks in Endicott, New York, where microelectronics production has yielded toxic chemical deposits. It explores the interface of risk perception and advocacy related to toxic contamination in a community where extensive state and corporate remediation efforts are taking place. The research blends quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate community responses to and perceptions of these remediation efforts and the extent to which risk perception is reduced or exacerbated.
Guided by social movement theory and environmental justice perspectives, the central research questions include: What does the environment mean to community members living in a postindustrial, environmentally contaminated microelectronic industry setting? What is the community's perception of risk and of remediation efforts? What prompts residents and workers to take action? How does the experience of collective organizing inform or transform peoples' perceptions of government-based environmental and occupational health agencies and the science they rely on to make decisions and act on community concerns? What do these questions tell us about approaches to and theories of risk, regulation and public participation in environmental and occupational health debates?
The study site, Endicott, New York, formerly housed an IBM plant that began manufacturing business machines and their components in the 1930s and started fabricating semiconductors over forty years ago. Listed under the U.S. EPA's National Priorities List, Endicott currently faces a trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination problem that has become the focus of a multi-agency response plan to remediate and understand local environmental and occupational health risk. This multi-method study includes: 1) in-depth qualitative interviewing of community residents; 2) testing hypotheses about the relationship between risk perception and remediation technology via survey; 3) ethnographic observation of advocacy groups.
