Grantee Research Project Results

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Research
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program

Integrating Human Health and Well-Being with Ecosystem Services

CLOSED: FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY

Recipients List

• Integrating Human Health & Well-Being with Ecosystem Services RFA Presentation (PDF) (15 pp, 3 MB, 3/23/2016)
• Integrating Human Health and Well-Being with Ecosystems Services Transcript Part 1 (PDF) (28 pp, 249 K, 4/5/2016)
• Integrating Human Health and Well-Being with Ecosystems Services Transcript Part 2 (PDF) (32 pp, 205 K, 4/5/2016)

This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.

Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-G2016-STAR-A1
EPA-G2016-STAR-A2: Early Career Projects

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.509

Solicitation Opening Date: February 22, 2016
Solicitation Closing Date: April 21, 2016, 11:59:59 pm Eastern Time

 

Table of Contents:
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
	Synopsis of Program
	Award Information
	Eligibility Information
	Application Materials
	Agency Contacts
I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
	A. Introduction
	B. Background
	C. Authority and Regulations
	D. Specific Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes
	E. References
	F. Special Requirements
II. AWARD INFORMATION
III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
	A. Eligible Applicants
	B. Cost Sharing
	C. Other
IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
	A. Grants.gov Submittal Requirements and Limited Exception Procedures
	B. Application Package Information
	C. Content and Form of Application Submission
	D. Submission Dates and Times
	E. Funding Restrictions
	F. Submission Instructions and Other Submission Requirements
V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION
	A. Peer Review
	B. Programmatic Review
	C. Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS) Review
	D. Funding Decisions
VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
	A. Award Notices
	B. Disputes
	C. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
VII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Access Standard STAR Forms (How to Apply and Required Forms)
View research awarded under previous solicitations Past Research Funding Opportunities

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Synopsis of Program:
For many people, the relationship between ecosystems and their own health and well-being can be unclear.  This makes it difficult for individuals as well as communities to consider ecosystems and the services they provide in personal and organizational decision making.  However, decisions—particularly at the community level—can be made significantly more robust and sustainable if they consider the benefits of ecosystems and the impacts of human activity on ecosystems.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA or EPA), through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, seeks applications for collaborative, community-based research that will foster better understanding of how ecosystems support human health and well-being.  Specifically, this research should examine how communities can integrate ecosystem services¹ with human health and well-being to inform their decision making and management practices.  It should also develop information that allows communities to integrate environmental, societal and economic information and to better manage multiple stressors and their cumulative impacts on humans and ecosystems.  The ultimate goal is to help communities achieve their own objectives.

This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research.  Human subjects research supported by the EPA is governed by EPA Regulation 40 CFR Part 26 (Protection of Human Subjects).  This includes the Common Rule at subpart A and prohibitions and additional protections for pregnant women and fetuses, nursing women, and children at subparts B, C, and D.  Research meeting the regulatory definition of intentional exposure research found in subpart B is prohibited by that subpart in pregnant women, nursing women, and children.  Research meeting the regulatory definition of observational research found in subparts C and D is subject to the additional protections found in those subparts for pregnant women and fetuses (subpart C) and children (subpart D).  All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS, as described in Section IV.C.5.c of this solicitation), and if the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation. Additional information can be found in Section I.A of the full announcement.

Guidance and training for investigators conducting EPA-funded research involving human subjects may be obtained here:
Basic Information about Human Subjects Research
Basic EPA Policy for Protection of Subjects in Human Research Conducted or Supported by EPA

In addition to regular awards, this solicitation includes the opportunity for early career awards. The purpose of the early career award is to fund research projects smaller in scope and budget by early career PIs. Please see Section III of this Request for Applications (RFA) for details on the early career eligibility criteria.

Award Information:
Anticipated Type of Award: Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately three regular and three early-career awards
Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $3 million total for all awards
Potential Funding per Award: Up to a total of $600,000 for regular awards and $400,000 for early-career awards, including direct and indirect costs, with a maximum duration of three years.
Cost-sharing is not required.  Proposals with budgets exceeding the total award limits will not be considered.

Eligibility Information:
Public nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes public institutions of higher education and hospitals) and private nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes private institutions of higher education and hospitals) located in the U.S., state and local governments, Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments, and U.S. territories or possessions are eligible to apply. 

This funding opportunity strongly encourages partnerships that include communities or community-based organizations.  See Sections I.D and IV.C.5.d of the full announcement for more details. Special eligibility criteria apply to the early career award portion of this RFA.  See full announcement for more details.

Application Materials:
To apply under this solicitation, use the application package available at Grants.gov (for further submission information see Section IV.F. “Submission Instructions and other Submission Requirements”).  Note: With the exception of the current and pending support form (available at Research Funding Opportunities: How to Apply and Required Forms), all necessary forms are included in the electronic application package. Make sure to include the current and pending support form in your Grants.gov submission.

If your organization is not currently registered with Grants.gov, you need to allow approximately one month to complete the registration process. Please note that the registration process also requires that your organization have a unique entity identifier (formerly ‘DUNS number’) and a current registration with the System for Award Management (SAM) and the process of obtaining both could take a month or more.  Applicants must ensure that all registration requirements are met in order to apply for this opportunity through Grants.gov and should ensure that all such requirements have been met well in advance of the submission deadline.  This registration, and electronic submission of your application, must be performed by an authorized representative of your organization.

If you do not have the technical capability to utilize the Grants.gov application submission process for this solicitation, see Section IV.A below for additional guidance and instructions.

Agency Contacts:
Technical Contact: Anne Sergeant (sergeant.anne@epa.gov); phone: 202-564-6474
Eligibility Contact: Ron Josephson (josephson.ron@epa.gov); phone: 202-564-7823
Electronic Submissions: Debra M. Jones (jones.debram@epa.gov); phone: 202-564-7839

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Introduction
Many communities and their supporting ecosystems face high pollutant exposures and risks.  Human exposure and effects can be exacerbated by nonchemical stressors (also known as modifying factors) such as poverty, limited access to services, pre-existing health conditions and aging infrastructure that undermines pollution-control efforts.  Nonchemical stressors that may intensify ecosystem exposures and effects include, for instance, habitat disturbance and destruction, life-stage-specific vulnerabilities and invasive species in addition to aging infrastructure.  Impacted communities often lack the technical expertise, environmental knowledge and community capacity to address these risks, so they may turn to outside organizations for help.  Yet even the most well-intentioned efforts to examine and manage multifaceted risks sometimes overlook a community’s specific concerns, and most analyses devote less attention to ecosystems than to humans. 

EPA is making efforts to better evaluate, quantify and incorporate cumulative impacts both quantitatively and qualitatively, and seeks to foster better integration of ecosystem services² and human health and well-being.  To complement these efforts, ORD’s STAR Program and EPA’s Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program (SHCRP) request applications for research into what limits communities’ ability to integrate human health and well-being with ecosystem services, while recognizing the need to advance the science behind evaluating, quantifying and incorporating cumulative impacts into decision making.  This RFA also aims to foster a more holistic approach to assessing risk and cumulative impacts (see, for instance, Summers et al., 2014).   SHCRP provides science and tools for decision makers at all levels to help communities advance sustainability as well as achieve regulatory compliance.  The program is collaborating with partners to conduct research that results in science-based knowledge to guide decisions that will better sustain a healthy society and environment in America's communities.

In 2003, EPA published the Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2003), which defined cumulative risk as “The combined risks from aggregate exposures to multiple agents or stressors.”  Correspondingly, EPA defined cumulative risk assessment (CRA) as “An analysis, characterization, and possible quantification of the combined risks to health or the environment from multiple agents or stressors.”

In 2008, a National Academy of Sciences advisory panel was created to comment on EPA risk assessment, especially the future of CRA (National Research Council, 2009a).  They proposed that “EPA apply the term cumulative risk assessment only to an analysis that considers in some capacity all the components mentioned in EPA’s definition of cumulative risk assessment.  An analysis that does not consider nonchemical stressors, that considers only a subset of routes and pathways of exposure, or that does not consider vulnerability should not be termed a cumulative risk assessment.”

Several aspects of the built and natural environment, and individual biology and lifestyle, can influence a response to a stressor. Typically, these aspects have been termed susceptibility, vulnerability, sensitivity, and – in reference to a mitigating effect – buffers. Susceptibility is often attributed to intrinsic factors, such as lifestage and genetics; whereas vulnerability is a function of external factors, such as poverty, education, stress, and access to health care and healthy foods. However, these concepts can overlap; for example, lack of access to health care and healthy foods can decrease biological resiliency through decreased health status and malnutrition. Stress, imposed by external stressors, releases hormones that can also increase the relative risk of exposure to a given stressor, compared to populations that do not experience such forces.  Figure 1 is an example conceptual model of how to represent potential interactions and linkages between stressors, modifying factors, ecosystem services and human health and well-being.

Figure 1.  Example Conceptual Model: Stressor, Ecosystem Services and Human Health and Well-Being.

Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem goods and services are the many life-sustaining benefits we receive from nature—clean air and water, fertile soil for crop production, pollination, and flood control. These ecosystem services are important to environmental and human health and well-being, yet they are limited and often taken for granted (U.S. EPA, 2014a).  Categories of ecosystem services include clean water for drinking; clean water for recreation and aquatic habitat; adequate water supply; food, fuel and fiber; recreation, cultural and aesthetic amenities; contributions to climate stability; protection from hazardous weather; habitat and the maintenance of biodiversity; and clean air.  These benefits and interactions take place in multiple scales (e.g., airsheds and watersheds) and settings (e.g., rural, urban, suburban) and at municipal, state, regional, and tribal levels.  Note that these services must be addressed within the context of the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of air pollution, water pollution, solid/hazardous waste pollution, toxic substances control, or pesticide control; see Section I.C for a discussion of allowable activities under EPA’s statutes.

Well-Being
“There is no consensus around a single definition of well-being, but there is general agreement that at minimum, well-being includes the presence of positive emotions and moods (e.g., contentment, happiness), the absence of negative emotions (e.g., depression, anxiety), satisfaction with life, fulfillment and positive functioning.  In simple terms, well-being can be described as judging life positively and feeling good.  For public health purposes, physical well-being (e.g., feeling very healthy and full of energy) is also viewed as critical to overall well-being. Researchers from different disciplines have examined different aspects of well-being that include the following:  physical well-being; economic well-being; social well-being; development and activity; emotional well-being; psychological well-being; life satisfaction; domain specific satisfaction; engaging activities and work.”  (CDC, 2014)

Nevertheless, EPA has developed a Human Well-Being Index (U.S. EPA, 2012c) that includes Connection to Nature, Cultural Fulfillment, Education, Health, Leisure Time, Living Standards, Safety and Security and Social Cohesion.

Communities
Successful applicants should address and integrate human and ecological communities in the research proposal.  Note that the term “community” is used differently in the human health and ecological sciences:

A human community may be defined as a group of people who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action within similar geographical locations or settings. Community is not only defined by a common geography; communities may also develop around a particular interest, issue, identity, or subject matter.

MacQueen et al. (2001) describe five core elements of community:

• Locus (a sense of place) such as a city, town, village, tribes, neighborhood, workplace, etc.,
• Sharing common interests and perspectives,
• Joint action that bring people together,
• Social ties such as family and friends, and
• Diversity of people and perspectives. 

As used in this announcement, a “community-based organization” means a nongovernmental organization that has demonstrated effectiveness as a representative of a community or a significant segment of a community and that helps members of that community or segment obtain environmental, educational, or other social services. A community-based organization must be a nonprofit or not for profit corporation in good standing under state or tribal law with authority to enter into binding legal agreements.  The community-based organization need not be tax exempt under the Internal Revenue Code but may use documentation of tax exempt status to demonstrate that is a nonprofit.

Ecological communities:  Note the difference between the above and the ecological definition of community provided in the Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992):  “An assemblage of populations of different species within a specified location in space and time.”  While the location may be specified in terms of habitat or geography, the species within it may or may not directly interact with each other.  The term may also describe a general category of organisms, for instance aquatic invertebrates.

This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research.  Human subjects research supported by the EPA is governed by EPA Regulation 40 CFR Part 26 (Protection of Human Subjects).  This includes the Common Rule at subpart A and prohibitions and additional protections for pregnant women and fetuses, nursing women, and children at subparts B, C, and D.  Research meeting the regulatory definition of intentional exposure research found in subpart B is prohibited by that subpart in pregnant women, nursing women, and children.  Research meeting the regulatory definition of observational research found in subparts C and D is subject to the additional protections found in those subparts for pregnant women and fetuses (subpart C) and children (subpart D).  All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS, as described in Section IV.C.5.c of this solicitation), and if the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation.

Please note that surveys, interviews, and focus groups with individuals may constitute human subjects research.

The additional level of review is conducted by the EPA Human Subjects Research Review Official (HSRRO).  In making a determination about conditional and later final approval, the HSRRO will apply both EPA Regulation 40 CFR 26 and EPA Policy Order 1000.17 Change A1, where human exposure research is interpreted as any intervention that manipulates subjects’ environment (i.e., modifies subjects’ exposure). 

For more specific information including guidance and training, see:
Basic Information about Human Subjects Research
Basic EPA Policy for Protection of Subjects in Human Research Conducted or Supported by EPA

In addition to regular awards, this solicitation includes the opportunity for early career awards. The purpose of the early career award is to fund research projects smaller in scope and budget by early career PIs. Please see Section III of this RFA for details on the early career eligibility criteria.  Early career applicants are encouraged to partner with other early career applicants with relevant expertise.

EPA recognizes that it is important to engage all available minds to address the environmental challenges the nation faces. At the same time, EPA seeks to expand the environmental conversation by including members of communities which may have not previously participated in such dialogues to participate in EPA programs. For this reason, EPA strongly encourages all eligible applicants identified in Section III, including minority serving institutions, to apply under this opportunity.

For purposes of this solicitation, the following are considered MSIs:

1. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1061). A list of these schools can be found at White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities;
2. Tribal Colleges and Universities, as defined by the Higher Education Act (20  U.S.C. § 1059(c)). A list of these schools can be found at American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities;
3. Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1101a(a)(5). There is no list of HSIs. HSIs are institutions of higher education that, at the time of application submittal, have an enrollment of undergraduate full-time equivalent students that is at least 25% Hispanic students at the end of the award year immediately preceding the date of application for this grant; and
4. Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions; (AANAPISIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1059g(a)(2)). There is no list of AANAPISIs. AANAPISIs are institutions of higher education that, at the time of application submittal, have an enrollment of undergraduate students that is not less than 10 % students who are Asian American or Native American Pacific Islander.

B. Background
Many communities struggle with complex environmental problems that require long-range planning and engagement with multiple stakeholders. Some of these issues include climate change and sustainable adaptation and mitigation efforts, resilience in the face of disasters that may be climate-related, such as wildfires, hurricanes and associated flooding and environmental damages, and stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows). They may also face human-driven modifications that adversely impact both humans and ecosystems.

Some linkages have been established between human health and nonchemical environmental stressors, health and environmental endpoints, as well as environmental endpoints and delivery of final ecosystem goods and services to human beneficiaries.  Investigators are moving closer to connecting ecosystem conditions or processes and human well-being (see Levy et al. [2012] for examples).  However, additional transdisciplinary research in these areas is needed in order to make these linkages useful to communities and decision makers.  The next step is to integrate this information to allow its use in transparent processes to inform decision makers as they select and implement more-sustainable outcomes; this includes integrating these linkages into frameworks that allow their use in transparent decision processes. 

Due to the complex and incompletely understood relationships between ecosystems (or ecosystem services) and human health and well-being, few studies have specifically linked them.  Examples may be found in Santos-Martín et al. (2013), who studied the relationships between ecosystems and human well-being in Spain, and in Kelble et al. (2013), who added an ecosystem-based management (EBM) component to the DPSIR (Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response) model to develop an EBM-DPSER (Driver, Pressure, State, Ecosystem service, Response) conceptual model, which they applied in the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas ecosystems.  EPA’s DPSIR tutorial is available at https://www.epa.gov/ged/tutorial/docs/DPSIR_Module_2.pdf.  Finally, Cox et al. (2013) recently inventoried U.S. Federal research on ecosystem services (note: few if any of these efforts directly address human health and well-being). 

Corvalán et al. (2005) reviewed how ecosystem services support human health and well-being as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.  Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being

This funding opportunity and resulting outcomes will support the Agency’s 2015-2016 focus on better supporting the efforts of communities, including environmentally overburdened, underserved and economically distressed communities to proactively address endemic and emerging environmental challenges in ways that build long-term sustainability and recognizes the impacts of multiple stressors on ecosystem services and community health and well-being.

This solicitation is aligned with several of EPA’s “Meeting the Challenge Ahead” themes (U.S. EPA, 2014b):

Making a Visible Difference in Communities across the Country: The sponsored research is expected to provide information that will improve communities’ ability to assess and manage stressors that adversely affect ecosystems and their services and human health and well-being.  Specifically, it will help them make the most of scarce resources and limited data, develop effective partnerships and decision making strategies, and gauge progress and ensure accountability.

Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality:  The sponsored research aims to support communities, tribes and state and local governments by laying the groundwork for partnerships that will allow them to tackle the complexities of climate change adaptation and mitigation and air-quality improvements.

Protecting Water:   The sponsored research will foster a big-picture view and improve understanding of the interactions and feedback loops between human activity and ecosystem services, including interactions with waterways that serve as drinking waters, recreational waters and other uses.

Working Toward a Sustainable Future:  It is anticipated that this research will lead to more efficient interactions and allow all entities to more confidently make decisions that incorporate the principles of sustainability. In the long term, these decisions will ensure the protection of ecosystem services and human health and well-being.

At their joint meeting in 2012, EPA’s Science Advisory Board and Board of Scientific Counselors (U.S. EPA, 2012a) noted the importance of ecosystem services as the vehicle for integrating human and ecological health, a need to build effective partnerships with communities so that both communities and the agency have input and contribute to the process, the need for tools that allow communities to make better decisions, and a need for research that identifies how to select and use specific kinds of data to inform decisions and evaluate outcomes. The larger benefit is to develop decision-support tools which allow stakeholders and communities as a whole to see not only the outcome, but also how good decisions are made. This in turn will advance decision science and make it more likely that knowledge will be transferable across a variety of scales and communities.

Climate Change:
Higher temperatures, altered weather patterns, and increased storm intensity have already been observed in many areas of the U.S (National Climate Assessment, 2014a).  Future climate change could increase evaporation from soils, evapotranspiration from vegetation, and water demand and use by people, and may cause many other changes, including the amount of precipitation, the proportion of rain to snow, the intensity, duration, or frequency of the precipitation events (leading to increased droughts and floods), stormwater volume and behavior (e.g., erosion, sediment deposition, pollutant transport) and changes in air quality in ozone and particulate matter (PM) (National Climate Assessment, 2014b).  The magnitude of climate change impacts will depend on interactions with local land-uses and changes, watershed characteristics, and management practices.

Human health and well-being impacts of climate change include but are not limited to heat stress, shift in distribution of zoonotic diseases, property and infrastructure damage from storms and flooding and altered recreational and economic opportunities. Climate change also poses particular threats to the health, well-being and ways of life of indigenous people such as Alaska Natives, American Indians and Pacific Islanders.

Climate change can affect ecosystems and their services by forcing organisms to shift to new areas, reducing available habitat or rendering it unsuitable, fostering the spread of disease and exotic invasive species, and altering fitness (the relative ability of an organism or population to survive, reproduce and propagate genes in an environment).

Disaster Resilience:
Community adaptation plans have become more robust to include and focus more on the concept of community resiliency, or a community’s ability to recover after climate-related natural disasters.  Reducing environmental hazards and disaster risks to protect human health and the environment is a major component of community resiliency.  Ensuring increased energy efficiency, evaluation of disaster risks, development of hazard mitigation plans and/or community adaptation plans are examples of activities used to support disaster preparedness or mitigation strategies.  For optimal success, these efforts must involve multi-disciplinary collaboration and partnerships with a community or community-based organization and may also involve local, state, tribal and federal entities, religious institutions, universities, etc.  For instance, EPA’s Smart Growth Program has developed a tool to help communities recover from a disaster, rebuild according to a shared community vision, and better prepare for the next natural disaster (see Smart Growth).

The focus and priority science questions of this solicitation are in line with the Sustainable and Healthy Communities (U.S. EPA, 2012b) Theme 2: Forecasting and Assessing Ecological and Community Health, which aims to develop the information and methods that communities need to assess how the natural and built environment affects the health and well-being of their residents. To accomplish this, Theme 2 conducts foundational research in two major topics: (1) the science of ecosystem services, including their production, use, and benefits, and (2) the science of human health and well-being as influenced by exposures to chemicals or other stressors in homes, schools, or neighborhoods. Theme 2 research will provide information that communities can use to develop management options to mitigate conditions that have adverse effects and to enhance conditions that have positive effects on human health and well-being.

The specific Strategic Goal and Objective from the EPA’s Strategic Plan that relate to this solicitation are:

Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development, Objective 3.1: Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities.

The EPA’s FY 2014-18 Strategic Plan can be found at: EPA Strategic Plan

C. Authority and Regulations
The authority for this RFA and resulting awards is contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1442, 42 U.S.C. 300j-1, the Clean Water Act, Section 104, 33 U.S.C. 1254 and the Clean Air Act, Section 103, 42 U.S.C. 7403.

For research with an international aspect, the above statutes are supplemented, as appropriate, by the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 102(2)(F).

Note that a project’s focus is to consist of activities within the statutory terms of EPA’s financial assistance authorities; specifically, the statute(s) listed above.  Generally, a project must address the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of air pollution, water pollution, solid/hazardous waste pollution, toxic substances control, or pesticide control depending on which statute(s) is listed above.  These activities should relate to the gathering or transferring of information or advancing the state of knowledge.  Proposals should emphasize this “learning” concept, as opposed to “fixing” an environmental problem via a well-established method.  Proposals relating to other topics which are sometimes included within the term “environment” such as recreation, conservation, restoration, protection of wildlife habitats, etc., must describe the relationship of these topics to the statutorily required purpose of pollution prevention and/or control. Note: Applications dealing with any aspect of or related to hydraulic fracking will not be funded by EPA through this program.

Applicable regulations include: 2 CFR Part 200, 2 CFR Part 1500, and 40 CFR Part 40 (Research and Demonstration Grants).

D. Specific Research Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes
Research areas of interest include:  [1] the factors that determine success or failure when using existing data sources on environmental pollution, ecosystem services and community health and well-being to understand the impacts of multiple stressors; [2] the factors that influence whether and how transparent decision making processes are developed and used to identify the most important stakeholders and stressors, set and prioritize goals, and evaluate management strategies; and [3] the most effective methods for tracking progress and ensuring accountability towards mitigating and reducing adverse impacts to ecosystems and human health and well-being at the community level. 

EPA is particularly interested in proposals for integrated, transdisciplinary research that addresses the interest areas above, and advance scientific understanding of what communities need to assess and manage the impact of multiple stressors on ecosystem services and human health and well-being.  Applicants must prepare a plan for community engagement and communications (see Section IV.C.5.d) in their research and implement the plan as a required output. 

Qualitative and quantitative linkages have been established between [1] human health and well-being and nonchemical environmental stressors, [2] health and environmental endpoints, and [3] environmental endpoints and delivery of final ecosystem goods and services to human beneficiaries.  This field of science now needs to develop additional relationships to demonstrate the quantitative data linkages. 

Applicants may also examine the beneficial forces that can reduce risk (often termed “buffers”).  For example, vegetative buffers reduce near-road pollution, nutrition and health care increase biological resiliency, and access to green space improves quality of life, outdoor activities, and general wellness. Applicants should also seek to understand how these can be incorporated into a community to improve population health.

Applicants may also wish to develop or apply tools that integrate costs, benefits, tradeoffs, and metrics for assessing alternative solutions within the context of sustainability. These tools should have the ability to analyze present and future consequences of alternative solutions including social, environmental, and economic indicators, particularly in reference to vulnerable populations, life stages, and environmentally overburdened communities and ecosystem services.  

Research Questions
Applicants should address all three overarching research questions:

1. What are the factors that determine success or failure, when using existing data sources on environmental pollution, ecosystem services and community health and well-being, to understand the impacts of multiple stressors?
2. What are the factors that influence whether and how transparent decision making processes are developed and used to identify the most important stakeholders and stressors, evaluate management strategies and set and prioritize goals?
3. What are the most effective methods for tracking progress and ensuring accountability towards mitigating and reducing adverse impacts to ecosystems and human health and well-being at the community level?

These overarching research questions should be considered in the context of improving communities’ ability to assess and manage stressors that adversely affect ecosystems and their services and human health and well-being.  Practical aspects include making the most of scarce resources and limited data, developing effective partnerships and decision making strategies, and gauging progress and ensuring accountability.  These in turn should lay the groundwork for partnerships that will allow communities, tribes and state and local governments to more confidently face complex issues such as climate change adaptation and mitigation, air quality improvements and protecting local water resources by fostering a big-picture view and improving understanding of the interactions and feedback loops between human activity and ecosystem services.

Examples of specific research questions that address the overarching research questions are included below. In developing proposals, applicants need not feel confined to these example research questions; they are intended only to illustrate the breadth of potential research. 

What are the factors that determine success or failure, when using existing data sources on environmental pollution, ecosystem services and community health and well-being, to understand the impacts of multiple stressors?
For example:

• How do communities identify, prioritize and integrate health and ecological concerns?
• When engaging community members in assessments, what is needed (e.g., training, time, impartiality) and what determines success?
• What factors influence communities’ awareness and appreciation of ecosystem services and use of that information in setting priorities?

What are the factors that influence whether and how transparent decision making processes are developed and used to identify the most important stakeholders and stressors, evaluate management strategies and set and prioritize goals?  For example:

• What are the best strategies for engaging diverse partners (a community, local government, academic institution or neighborhood) to address and mitigate critical community health or environmental concerns (e.g., asthma, heavy metal exposure/contamination, water pollution)?
• What are the most compelling reasons that influence adoption of behaviors that either reduce exposure to stressors or protect the environment?
• What decision tools work best with communities to set and prioritize goals?

What are the most effective methods for tracking progress and ensuring accountability towards mitigating and reducing adverse impacts to ecosystems and human health and well-being at the community level? For example:

• How can pollutant-reduction programs best be monitored and evaluated for effectiveness, accountability and sustainability?
• What are the associated ecosystem, societal, and economic benefits of improved environmental management?  Do they accrue in the community, or elsewhere?
• How can applicants evaluate the success of human-oriented strategies such as choice architecture and persuasive technology? (See “Societal Factors” below.)  

Context for Research Questions

Ecosystems: Proposals should specify which ecosystems and services will be examined and how they were selected; if they have not yet been identified, the process for selecting the ecosystems and services should be described.  Applicants should indicate the level or scale of focus.  Levy et al. (2012) discuss several points to consider regarding scale as well as relationships between specific ecosystem services and health.  Proposals are not limited to any particular ecosystem:  Urban, suburban and rural ecosystems are all acceptable, so long as adequate information is available.  Alberti (2008) provides a comprehensive treatment of the human behaviors and atmospheric, hydrologic, and biogeochemical processes that shape urban ecosystems.  Note that ecosystems and ecosystem services should be treated comparably to human health and well-being, and the investigation should recognize their interdependence.

Processes: Investigations should focus on both technological, organizational and behavioral strategies that help people understand the adverse impacts of multiple stressors (chemical and non-chemical) and the interactions between them.  They should also address ecosystem services.

Societal Factors:  Any proposed economic analyses should consider whether ecosystem, social, and economic benefits accrue widely or are concentrated in certain socioeconomic areas, particularly if an activity’s costs are borne elsewhere. Applicants may wish to explore how human and societal phenomena affect and can be used to accomplish environmental change, or choice architecture—the idea that the way in which choices are presented influences decision-making (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009).

Sustainability: Proposed projects should be placed in the context of sustainability; e.g., applicants may wish to use approaches such as the Total Resources Impact Outcome (TRIO) described in Summers et al. (2014); or ecological-based models/approaches e.g., Millennium Ecosystem Assessment developed by the World Health Organization (2005), the Ecological footprint (Wackernagel et al. 2002) and others.  Sustainability is defined later in this solicitation.

Data sources: Applicants are strongly encouraged to use existing data for the community and should document quality assurance and any major limitations.

Applicants are also encouraged to take advantage of existing data sources and resources such as those found at EPA’s EnviroAtlas, Integrated Risk Information System, Envirofacts, https://www.epa.gov/research/healthscience/browser/introduction.html and Health Research Methods, Models, Tools, and Databases.

Applicants are also encouraged to utilize publically available databases and reports such as those from the USGS, NOAA, climate.gov, census data and health statistics from the Robert Wood Johnson , Pew Charitable Trusts, and Americas Health Rankings, among others.

Research methodologies and other information may be available from previously funded community-based research such as EPA STAR-sponsored Environmental Public Health Indicators (https://www.epa.gov/ncer/ephi), Tribal Environmental Health Research and Cumulative Risk Assessment Proceedings; the NIEHS Partnerships for Environmental Public Health and the federal partnership for sustainability (Smart Growth Partnerships).

If existing data will be used, applicants should address the factors described on page 9 of NCER’s Guidance on Satisfying EPA Quality Requirements for STAR Grants (PDF) (20 pp, 94K).  Applicants should document why the chosen data sets are appropriate for the intended application.  If combining datasets, investigators should explain why it is appropriate to combine them (e.g., provide information about collection methods, study design, etc.). They should also address data management and any human-subjects considerations related to use of these data.

Partnerships: Because these are ambitious goals, eligible applicants must have an effective community engagement and communications plan (see Section IV.C.5.d).  EPA strongly encourages an active partnership with a community or a community-based organization that has already developed some data and started identifying and prioritizing human and ecological concerns. Applicants who will partner with a community or a community-based organization must document:  [1] an active partnership with a community or community-based organization, [2] the partner’s intent to participate in the proposed research and [3] that the applicant or partner has acquired enough data to identify and prioritize public-health and ecological concerns. 

Proposals should emphasize collaboration and may include a local, state or tribal government entity and other relevant partners.  A partnership may be described as a group in which actors from different sectors voluntarily work to develop a product that no single actor could effectively produce on its own (NRC, 2009b).  Applicants may wish to take advantage of the “plan, do, check, refine” approach described in “Enhancing the Effectiveness of Sustainability Partnerships” (NRC, 2009b).  Partnerships should be collaborations of organizations that materially contribute to the project, not simply entities providing endorsement. 

Integrated and Transdisciplinary Approaches

Applicants must take an integrated, transdisciplinary approach to their study design.  To that end, EPA seeks applications that demonstrate that the research team and their partners have worked together to design the program, to ensure each project reflects the input and interactions of different disciplines, and that the proposal as a whole reflects the collective thinking of a multidisciplinary team.  It is not sufficient to list a collection of insular activities even if they address complementary topics.  EPA recognizes that tight scientific integration can be a challenge, but this is a high priority.  Applicants are expected to: demonstrate how their proposed project activities are integrated; encourage participation of investigators with the needed expertise and qualifications; and employ cutting-edge approaches.  This funding presents the opportunity for investigators from different disciplines to work together on community-scale problems such as developing strategies for turning polluted ecosystems into beneficial resources; preparing for altered weather or fire patterns; or managing events such as Ozone Action Days or Boil Water Advisories. 

Community-Engaged Research

This RFA strongly encourages collaboration among eligible applicants and communities to propose and conduct studies relevant to community needs.  Substantial engagement with community groups in all aspects of the research planning, development and translation is strongly encouraged under this solicitation. Collaborative interaction and involvement with the affected community members and stakeholders during the proposal development and through the life of the project are highly encouraged.  Particularly of interest is research that will advance the ability of communities and individuals to take action to avoid exposure to harmful pollutants.

Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) is a framework or orientation for conducting research that supports the premise that people ought to be involved in the decisions, as well as the cultivation of information those decisions are guided by, that affect their lives (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995; Israel et al. 1998). CEnR also acknowledges that communities harbor a wealth of information about their own experiences and perspectives that may be used to positively inform and shape research endeavors. CEnR builds upon those strengths to help inform the research project and produce the results that may benefit both the academic or institutional researchers (henceforth referred to as just “researchers”) and community partners (e.g., community-based organizations) (Israel et al., 2005). CEnR may incorporate both qualitative and quantitative methodologies and can be applied to a range of topics including environmental science and engineering, public health, and social sciences. CEnR is not a uniform approach, but can occur along a continuum in a variety of forms, from outreach, through more shared leadership/participatory research approaches (e.g., community-based participatory research) to community-driven/community-led research.

Applicants are encouraged to utilize Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) and similar CEnR research approaches in their study design. CBPR is defined as a collaborative process of research involving researchers and community representatives. The process of scientific inquiry is such that community members, persons affected by the health condition, disability or issue under study, or other key stakeholders in the community's health, should participate in each phase of the work.

Although a range of levels of community involvement can be considered CBPR, CBPR is characterized by substantial community input in the project. In the application, the applicant will need to justify the level of community involvement that he or she has proposed. For additional information on CBPR, see Minkler and Wallerstein (2008). At a minimum, each applicant should:

• Focus on research issues of significance to a community that is interested in the proposed work.
• Identify the role of community members in the proposed research plan (i.e., the degree of community input or engagement in the conceptualization, design, methods, analyses, or dissemination of research).
• Describe how this research will enhance the capacity of the community.
• Allocate appropriate resources to the research partners to ensure success of the collaboration, e.g., delineating funds under the project’s budget for community participation.
• If a host organization (any organization/institution other than the applicant) is used to facilitate community participation or partnerships, evaluate the organization’s mission and practices concerning community partnerships (e.g., how the staff has or can develop skills to sustain community participation).
• Provide evidence of community support.

Applicants should be aware of the sensitivities of conducting research in communities and in partnering with community groups and the need for shared resources (e.g., allocation of a portion of the budget to community partners), responsibility and ownership, including communication and translation of study results.  There is increased understanding and appreciation for community involvement in research, as it tends to provide impactful and long-term outcomes and outputs that are more responsive to community needs, more likely to identify risks that researchers had not appreciated, improve informed consent, increase study enrollment, enhance data validity and quality, build trust for research, and help translate research into public policy.  Community involvement allows researchers to understand the views of the community in which research studies are conducted and to respond to those perspectives so that the risks of a research project are minimized and appropriate in light of the anticipated benefits of the findings as required by federal regulations on conducting research involving human subjects.

A Community Engagement and Communications Plan (see Section IV.C.5.d) detailing the proposed methods for community engagement and communication must be provided. Active and sustained partnerships with communities or community-based organizations are integral to the research being solicited. A wide range of communications options and methods for community involvement may be considered by the applicant. In the plan, the applicant should justify the methods of community engagement and communication with stakeholders. This plan should also make evident the project’s relevance for communities and its potential for empowering communities and individuals to take action to reduce pollutant exposure.

Complementarity and consistency with other activities: 
To the extent practicable, proposed activities should strive for consistency with the livability principles described in the interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities, which: [1] provide more transportation choices; [2] promote equitable, affordable housing; [3] increase economic competitiveness; [4] support existing communities; [5] leverage federal investment; and [6] value communities and neighborhoods (see Partnership for Sustainable Communities ). 

This RFA focuses on two of these livability principles:

• Support existing communities:  This research is targeted toward existing communities—through strategies like transit-oriented, mixed-use planning/redevelopment and land recycling—to increase climate-related community disaster resilience and the efficiency of public works investments and to safeguard rural landscapes.  Note that any planning or redevelopment should account for the effects of climate change.
• Value communities and neighborhoods:  Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, resilient and walkable neighborhoods—rural, urban, or suburban.

The research plan should describe how the proposed project will advance these principles; applicants may use indicators such as the following to accomplish this:

• Total percentage of people commuting via walking, biking or transit
• Number or scale of “climate-ready” planning and redevelopment actions
• Utility infrastructure resiliency
• Net acres of agricultural and natural resource land lost annually to development per new resident

Proposed projects may also strive for consistency (as appropriate) with the Urban Waters Initiative and similar efforts, particularly its goals of helping communities restore and reconnect with their waterways and surrounding land in order to restore and protect urban waters. (Urban Waters will also build upon ongoing efforts across the nation and will utilize strategies that have proven to be successful. It will also act to convene stakeholders, broker the exchange of knowledge, and leverage existing federal programs to promote urban water revitalization. See Urban Waters.)

Expected Outputs and Outcomes

Note to applicant:  The term “output” means an environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work products related to an environmental goal or objective, that will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date.  The term “outcome” means the result, effect or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective.

The expected outputs from this research will be scientific data and information on how to best enable communities (including both individuals and institutions) to understand and manage the impact of multiple stressors on human health and ecosystems.  These outputs are expected to include articles in peer-reviewed journals, websites, periodic reports, and presentations at scientific conferences.  Additionally, proposed activities should generate products that states, tribes, and municipalities can use to develop assessments and management practices, inform their decision-making, and achieve their environmental and health goals.

Example outputs include:

• Best practices for engaging communities and diverse partners, including not just “How?” but “How much?” and “When?”
• Best practices for using disparate types of data, particularly for integrating human health and ecological impacts.

Expected outcomes include: [1] reductions in adverse impacts to human health and ecosystems, [2] greater recognition that all ecosystems provide services to humans, and [3] better understanding of the myriad forces that lead to a given impact, either on people or ecosystems.   These outcomes should be articulated in a way that express the spatial and temporal scale over which these improvements are expected.

Example outcomes include:

• Greater use of local data in community-level decisions to reduce pollutant exposure.
• A degraded habitat is returned to a state that not only reduces chemical exposure but provides ecosystem services such as floodwater mitigation and exercise opportunities.

Measures should be specific about the temporal and spatial scale to which they apply.  Finally, it is also expected that this information will both inform human and ecological assessments and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of management strategies designed to improve human health and the environment.

To the extent practicable, research proposals must embody innovation and sustainability.  Innovation for the purposes of this RFA is defined as the process of making changes; a new method, custom or device.  Innovative research can take the form of wholly new applications or applications that build on existing knowledge and approaches for new uses.  Research proposals must include a discussion on how the proposed research is innovative (see Section IV.C.5.a).  The concept of sustainability is based on language in the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  This definition is reiterated in Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environment, Energy, and Economic Performance, stating that the goal of sustainability is to, “create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.” Research proposals must include a discussion on how the proposed research will seek sustainable solutions that protect the environment and strengthen our communities (see Section IV.C.5.a).  ORD will draw from all of the above-mentioned innovation and sustainability definitions in the review/evaluation process of recommending research proposals (see Section V.A).

E. References
Alberti, M.  Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems.  Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, New York.  (2008)   e-ISBN-13: 978-0-387-75510-6

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).  Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL): Well-being Concepts (2014)  Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) (accessed 9 October 2014)

Cornwall, A., Jewkes, J.