Awardee Benefits & Responsibilities

Application Process

1. Letters of Intent

Letters of intent will include a list of collaborators and a 5,000-character abstract that covers the specific aims, significance, innovation, approach, and plans for future NIEHS/NIH funding, along with the NIH biosketch and other support of the principal investigator (PI). They will be reviewed to ensure the proposed research is focused on environmental health and consistent with the goals of TiCER and NIEHS. You may use the Pilot Projects Application to submit a letter of intent.

2. Invitation to Submit a Full Proposal

Investigators who submit letters of intent that meet the appropriate criteria will receive invitations to submit a full proposal.

3. Full Application Due

The format for the pilot project applications follows NIH R21 guidelines with these components: 1) cover page (1 page), 2) abstract (1 page), 3) specific aims (1 page), and 4) significance, innovation, approach, and plans for future funding (4 pages).

Also include: 1) NIH biosketches, 2) facilities descriptions, 3) detailed budget ($50,000 maximum), and 4) budget justification.

No faculty salaries are allowed. All criteria required for NIH grant applications need to be addressed (not included in the page limits), including sections on 1) scientific rigor and statistical considerations, 2) resource sharing plan, 3) explanation and description of animal use or human subjects (including the sex of animals or humans), and 4) letters of support.

4. Review of Pilot Project Submissions

Applications will be sent to the administrative core for review by qualified reviewers identified by the Pilot Projects committee. Proposals will be peer-reviewed and scored on 1 ) scientific merit (60 points), 2) potential for NIEHS funding (25 points), 3) utilization of TiCER’s cores (10 points), and 4) proposals that are collaborative or from an early stage investigator (5 points).

5. Funding Announcements

Principal investigators of proposals selected for funding will be notified by the TiCER director.

Current Projects

TiCER Pilot Project 1

Status: study under review (Journal: Environmental Science and Policy)
Title: Worried (and) Sick: How environmental hazards affect Americans’ health-related risk attitudes
Investigators: Rotem Dvir, Arnold Vedlitz, and Xinyue Ye

Abstract
This study explores risk attitudes of environmental hazards by adapting an established social-cognitive model (CCRPM), and applying it in the context of health-related implications of environmental hazards. We argue that personal experience and a greater understanding of the hazards increase risk perceptions and that a strong social context reduces health concerns from environmental hazards. Using data from a national survey (N=1207), we find higher health-related risk perceptions among those with existing health problems. Also, individuals with a greater understanding of the threats are more concerned about health complications resulting from environmental hazards. At the same time, individuals living in communities with strong social ties report decreased risk attitudes. Additional in-depth analysis shows that residents of at-risk communities (localities where air pollution is higher) display higher risk perceptions compared to those in less polluted areas. The findings amplify the dimensions described in the theoretical model and how structural conditions matter for individuals’ risk perceptions.

TiCER Pilot Project 2

Status: Manuscript in advanced preparation stage
Title: Public support for environmental policy: Testing mitigation of health hazards using regression and machine learning models
Investigators: Rotem Dvir and Arnold Vedlitz

Abstract
This study explores public policy preferences to mitigate the risks of environmental hazards. While many studies assess policies to tackle general hazards, we focus on the health-related aspect of hazards and public views of proposed government solutions. We posit that for policy preferences, the main factor is people’s perceptions about the competence and degree of responsibility of the government to mitigate the risks. We also account for common factors such as risk perceptions (including health-specific concerns), knowledge and experience of health issues. We implement a combined empirical approach using regression models to estimate the relationship between the factors and observed outcome of policy support, as well as factor importance tests to ascertain the role of each element. We complement the test with a data-driven approach using a machine learning method of random forest to validate the models and gain greater predictive accuracy. Our empirical tests of national survey data (N=1207) provide ample evidence showing that views of competence and responsibility are by far the most important factors in shaping policy support. Risk perceptions, factual knowledge, and political ideology also play important roles in explaining the variations in citizens’ views. The results of this study extend existing knowledge on the factors that determine policy preferences to mitigate the health risks of environmental health hazards. The combined methodological approach offers further robustness to our ability to predict how citizens would assess different government solutions to address health-related risks from environmental hazards.

TiCER Pilot Project 3

Status: Manuscript in medium preparation stage
Title: Support to Environmental Policy and its Association with Objective and Perceived Risk of Exposure
Investigators: Carol Goldsmith, Ki Eun Kang, and Arnold Vedlitz

Abstract
Scholars argue that risk exists through social construction and that perceived risk is a cognitive phenomenon (Boholm, 1998; Sjöberg, 1996; Wildavsky & Dake, 1990). We examine the relationship between actual risk exposure and risk perception, and we extend the research by looking at significant risk predictors (objective risk and perceived risk) of people’s attitudes toward environmental policies. This study aims to understand two main research questions: (1) whether environmental health threats impact people’s perception and (2) if public support and opposition to policies addressing environmental health threats are related to environmental health threat perception and/or environmental health threats level. We address these relationships by considering actual toxic waste sites (objective risk) to individual environmental health threat concerns (perceived risk) and environmental health threat policy support using the 2021 Texas survey. Our overall findings show that objective risk is important to people’s risk perception but not to environmental policy support. Our results also indicate that public environmental policy support tends to be driven by risk perception. 

TiCER Pilot Project 4

Status: Manuscript in medium presentation form
Title: Factors that Contribute to Public Perceptions on Environmental Health Threat Policy
Investigators: Carol Goldsmith, Ki Eun Kang, and Arnold Vedlitz

Abstract
Planners often find themselves caught between conflicting interests among the supposedly complementary aims of economic growth, environmental protection, and equitable distribution and must mediate the affected parties in the public engagement process. Identifying the factors that contribute to public perceptions and behaviors is an important first step in finding common ground and pathways out of the sustainability dilemma. The conflicts have been heightened through the global pandemic, continued climate change, and accumulation of environmental stressors from natural and anthropogenic activities; while consensus does not have to be the goal, leaving conflicts unaddressed is likely to undermine the effectiveness of programs implemented to address health challenges resulting from environmental risks, as these challenges cut across multiple sectors and domains. Therefore, it is necessary to examine how agents, arenas, and areas of policy approach align to make the most of public engagement in planning for healthy and resilient communities.

Using a resident survey from Harris and Hidalgo counties in Texas, this paper seeks answers to:

• RQ-1: What explains residents’ willingness to participate in public policy hearings or discussions and action to reduce exposure to pathogens, toxins, and irritants?
• RQ-2: How does public support for certain types of interventions and perception about accountability (not) align with policy adoption, program implementation, and funding allocation?

---

Success Stories

1. Health Risks and Hazard Perception of Airborne Toxic Metals: Vulnerable Populations Neighboring the Houston Ship Channel
   • Dr. Shankar Chellam, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and faculty in the School of Public Health