Research brief by Nayamín Martínez (the co-chair of EHSC's Community Advisory Committee) and Jonathan London (the lead of EHSC's Community Engagement Core), and their collaborators at UC Merced, Gilda Zarate-Gonzalez and Ricardo Cisneros. 

Why we did this study

Enacted into law in 2017, Assembly Bill 617 has been hailed as a “transformative” effort to protect the air quality and health of California’s most disadvantaged communities. It has engaged a wide range of stakeholders, from community residents and organizations, local governments, and industry in Community Steering Committees (CSCs) as well as regional Air Districts, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and other interested parties. AB 617 has promoted innovative approaches such as localized air quality monitoring, improvements in collaboration between communities and agencies, and enhanced air quality protection strategies. California’s San Joaquin Valley, site of the state’s most polluted air has four AB 617 communities.

The rollout of AB 617’s Community Air Protection Program has faced many challenges. These have included tensions over the kind and degree of community power and decision-making, distribution of authority across state and regional agencies, reliance on implementing partners without sufficient legislative authority or resources, time and resource constraints on implementing agencies, balancing place-based implementation strategies while maintaining statewide consistency, and adherence to environmental justice principles.

After five years of implementation, hundreds of millions of dollars allocated, tens of thousands of volunteered hours by community residents in 19 AB 617 communities, it is timely to examine its successes, challenges, and possibilities for future improvement. Therefore, this study examines South and Southwest Fresno and Shafter in the San Joaquin Valley for the degree and kinds of impacts of AB 617 on building and applying community power in air quality strategies and the current and potential impacts of these strategies on air quality and community health and well-being. The study intends to inform policy makers, agencies, community organizations and residents as they collaborate to improve implementation of AB 617 in the San Joaquin Valley and statewide.

How we did this study

Our research team studied two cases from Fresno and Shafter in the San Joaquin Valley – the region with some of the worst air quality in the nation. These communities are two of the first-year program cohort and represent a diversity of urban and rural conditions. We summarize data from 40 interviews with diverse stakeholders, two rounds of a 150-person resident survey (total n=301, conducted in November 2021 and February 2023,) and 2000 hours of participant observation of public meetings. The study is based on an interdisciplinary and community-university research model that prioritized community knowledge and interests in its design and implementation while also serving the interests of agencies and other stakeholders.

What we found

A. Community and agency leaders are moving from conflict to collaboration. 

The participation model including enhanced outside facilitation, community co-leads, hands-on community planning and priority setting, and support from CARB is expanding community voice.

However, conflicts remain. Most of these conflicts revolve around questions of power, for example, whether the process has truly been community driven, as intended, or has power remained in the hands of the public agencies and whether the funding investments have truly reflected community priorities.

“Anything done needs to be done in a transparent manner and that the Community Steering Committee is seen and included in all discussions. There is still some friction that the CSC is viewed as not being able to handle these matters and that needs to be resolved. The community needs to have the decision-making power at the table with any of these agencies.” - CSC member (Fresno)

B. There are on-the-ground community benefits. 

Practical projects such urban greening in Fresno, electrification of home and agricultural equipment in Shafter as well as local pressure that resulted in a state-wide pesticide notification system are several hard-won but important manifestations of community power.

C. Multiple parties with limited structures to guide collaboration have challenged effective implementation. 

AB 617 has required the engagement of multiple agencies, most of whom are not mandated or funded to participate. We refer to this as the AB 617 “implementation ecosystem. ” Figure 1 below shows the complexity involved in the actual implementation. It uses an example of a pesticide notification measure in the Shafter Community Emissions Reduction Program that experienced significant conflict across multiple local and state agencies. This complexity and the lack of political and financial resources to effectively engage these entities has made achieving AB 617’s goals challenging. Engaging cities and counties on land use zoning and permitting has been especially challenging. Success in implementing AB 617 will require a comprehensive collaborative strategy across all of these agencies and keyholders.

D. Resident perceptions about health and air quality are mixed.

While the overall perception of air quality improved, most participants remained concerned about the effects of air pollution on their personal health and well-being. The two waves of surveys indicated that more than half of the participants in Fresno and Shafter are extremely concerned about air pollution’s impact on their health and well-being. (Figure 2 shows this for Shafter, where the largest changes were identified.)  

The responses to several self-reported health conditions, such as asthma, indicated that the percentage of people who were diagnosed with this illness increased in both communities, from 25% to 31% in Fresno and 10% to 13% in Shafter. This is an important finding considering that asthma is well documented to be associated with poor air quality.

In 2021, 58% of the Fresno participants ranked the air quality in their city being either “A Little Worse” (26%) or “Much Worse” (32%). Two years later, while the percentage of participants ranking the air quality as A Little Worse increased to 33%, the percentage of those who considered the air quality as Much Worse went down to 18%; thus, there was an overall 7 percent reduction in the Fresno respondents who considered their air quality being worse.

In Shafter, the drop in the percentage of participants who ranked the air quality being worse was more significant, it went down from 31% to 21% for “A Little Worse” and from 18% to 11% for “Much Worse”. (See Figure 3). 

What do these findings mean?

Based on our research we suggest that the following steps can help realize the potential of AB 617.

For the Legislature

1. The legislature should expand the authorities and associated funding for other state agencies and local governments to better collaborate in implementing AB 617. Ensuring the land use and transportation decisions are made in keeping with clean air goals is particularity important.
2. The legislature should address the tension between the goal of statewide protection of vulnerable communities with a program based on a community by community approach.

For Regulatory Agencies (CARB and Air District)

1. CARB should play a more significant role in ensuring that the policy’s core value on community decision-making are followed by the Air District.
2. The Air District need to better align and expedite their investment strategies and processes to the community needs and

For the CSCs and Community Advocates

1. Community leaders should continue to build their capacity to partner with agencies from an empowered position and hold them accountable to community priorities. 
2. Residents’ perceptions of air quality and health conditions should be taken seriously as indicators of success of the implementation of AB 617.

 

About the authors

This brief was authored by Nayamín Martínez, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Jonathan K London, UC Davis Department of Human Ecology and Gilda Zarate-Gonzalez and Ricardo Cisneros, UC Merced Department of Public Health. London, Martínez, and Cisneros are 2021 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Interdisciplinary Research Leaders fellows. For questions please contact: Jonathan London, jklondon@ucdavis.edu. For questions please contact: Jonathan London.