The 2016 election of Donald Trump heightened the disproportionate risks from toxicants faced by minoritized communities from cuts in the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding, reworking environmental health regulations, and obfuscating related information. In response, the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI)—a US-based network of social scientists, technologists, and activists—was formed to develop an environmental data justice framework to address the ongoing political forces that influence how environmental data is collected, shared, and rendered flawed, incomplete, or vulnerable. By collaborating with communities and non-profit organizations, EDGI's Environmental Enforcement Watch (EEW) project designed computational notebooks that critically situate, question, and analyze EPA datasets on industry compliance and state enforcement of environmental regulations beyond the Trump political moment. These civic partnerships expose gaps, biases, and silences in environmental data that sustain a harmful permission-to-pollute system. Using a multi-sited auto-technography, we reflect on the development and use of EEW notebooks, tracing their application across workshops, collectively designed reports, and data stewardship practices. We show how feminist care practices informed the creation of computational notebooks as an effective resource for environmental justice groups to negotiate environmental datafication, supporting the co-production of critical knowledge about environmental governance.
AndersenChris. 2016. “The Colonialism of Canada’s Métis Health Population Dynamics: Caught Between Bad Data and No Data at All.” Journal of Population Research33 (1): 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-016-9161-4.
2.
BakerKaren S.KarastiHelena. 2018. “Data Care and Its Politics: Designing for Local Collective Data Management as a Neglected Thing.” In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1, 1-12. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210587.
3.
BucherTaina. 2016. “Neither Black Nor Box: Ways of Knowing Algorithms.” In Innovative Methods in Media and Communication Research, edited by KubitschkoSebastianKaunAnne, 81–98. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Accessed April 4, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40700-5_5.
4.
CarrollStephanie RussoGarbaIbrahimFigueroa-RodríguezOscar L.HolbrookJaritaLovettRaymondMaterecheraSimeonParsonsMark, Kayet al.2020. “The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.” Data Science Journal19 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043.
5.
ChatzidakisAndreasHakimJamieLitterJoRottenbergCatherine. 2020. The Care Manifesto: The Politics of Interdependence. London: Verso.
DencikLinaHintzArneReddenJoannaTreréEmiliano. 2019. “Exploring Data Justice: Conceptions, Applications and Directions.” Information, Communication & Society22 (7): 873–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1606268.
8.
D’IgnazioCatherineKleinLauren F.. 2020. Data Feminism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
9.
DillonLindseyLaveRebeccaMansfieldBeckyWylieSaraShapiroNicholasChanAnita SayMurphyMichelle. 2019. “Situating Data in a Trumpian Era: The Environmental Data and Governance Initiative.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers109 (2): 545–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2018.1511410.
10.
DillonLindseyWalkerDawnShapiroNicholasUnderhillVivianMartenyiMeganWylieSaraLaveRebecca, Michelle, et al.2017. “Environmental Data Justice and the Trump Administration: Reflections from the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative.” Environmental Justice10 (6): 186–92. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2017.0020.
FortunKim. 2001. Advocacy After Bhopal: Environmentalism, Disaster, New Global Orders. 1st edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
FortunKim. 2004. “From Bhopal to the Informating of Environmentalism: Risk Communication in Historical Perspective.” Osiris19: 283–96. https://doi.org/10.1086/649407. PMID: 15484393.
19.
FortunKimFortunMike. 2005. “Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical Plateaus in Contemporary US Toxicology.” American Anthropologist107 (1): 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2005.107.1.043.
20.
FortunKimFrickelScottHoffmanKarenDelborneJasonGaluskyWyattMorello-FroschRachelBrownPhil, et al.2011. Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. Illustrated edition. Edited by Gwen Ottinger and Benjamin R. Cohen. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
GabrysJenniferPritchardHelenBarrattBenjamin. 2016. “Just Good Enough Data: Figuring Data Citizenships Through Air Pollution Sensing and Data Stories.” Big Data & Society3 (2): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679677.
22.
GilesCynthia. 2022. Next Generation Compliance: Environmental Regulation for the Modern Era. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
HarawayDonna J. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
24.
HardingSandra. 1992. “After the Neutrality Ideal: Science, Politics, and ‘Strong Objectivity’.” Social Research59 (3): 567–87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40970706.
25.
HarrisonJill Lindsey. 2019. From the Inside Out: The Fight for Environmental Justice Within Government Agencies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
26.
HorganLeahMokKiraBoetschElizaKellySophieDickinsonKatherineNostEricBongiavanniRoseannWylieSara. 2024. “What Does Chelsea Creek Do for You? A Relational Approach to Environmental Justice Communication.” Environmental Justice17 (1): 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2022.0081.
27.
JalbertKirkRubrightSamantha MaloneEdelsteinKaren. 2017. “The Civic Informatics of FracTracker Alliance: Working with Communities to Understand the Unconventional Oil and Gas Industry.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society3: 528–59. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.128.
LeonSam. 2021. “Accounting for Methods.” In The Data Journalism Handbook: Towards A Critical Data Practice, edited by BounegruLilianaGrayJonathan, 128–37. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1qr6smr.22.
30.
LiboironMax. 2021. Pollution Is Colonialism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31.
LippertIngmar. 2022. “Chapter 38: Digitalisation as Promissory Infrastructure for Sustainability.” In Handbook of Critical Environmental Politics, edited by PellizzoniLuigiLeonardiEmanueleAsaraViviana, 540–53. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839100673.00049.
32.
MansfieldBecky. 2021. “Deregulatory Science: Chemical Risk Analysis in Trump’s EPA.” Social Studies of Science51 (1): 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720970284.
MartinArynMyersNatashaViseuAna. 2015. “The Politics of Care in Technoscience.” Social Studies of Science45 (5): 625–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715602073.
35.
Mayer-SchönbergerViktorCukierKenneth. 2013. Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
MinowaYukoViscontiLuca M.MaclaranPauline. 2012. “Researchers’ Introspection for Multi-Sited Ethnographers: A Xenoheteroglossic Autoethnography.” Journal of Business Research65 (4): 483–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.026.
38.
MörtenböckPeterMooshammerHelge. 2020. Data Publics: Public Plurality in an Era of Data Determinacy. Abingdon: Routledge.
39.
MurphyM. 2022. “Chemical Futures and Environmental Data Justice.” UnderCurrents: Journal of Critical Environmental Studies21 (2022): 45–8. https://doi.org/10.25071/2292-4736/40349.
PalmerMeredith Alberta. 2024. “An Indigenous Geographic Position on Producing Data in Colonial Conditions.” Geography Compass18 (5), https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12746.
42.
PinelClémencePrainsackBarbaraMcKevittChristopher. 2020. “Caring for Data: Value Creation in a Data-Intensive Research Laboratory.” Social Studies of Science50 (2): 175–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720906567.
43.
PoirierLindsay. 2021. “Reading Datasets: Strategies for Interpreting the Politics of Data Signification.” Big Data & Society8 (2): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211029322.
44.
Puig de la BellacasaMaría. 2011. “Matters of Care in Technoscience: Assembling Neglected Things.” Social Studies of Science41 (1): 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710380301.
45.
ReismanEmily. 2021. “Plants, Pathogens, and the Politics of Care: Xylella Fastidiosa and the Intra-Active Breakdown of Mallorca’s Almond Ecology.” Cultural Anthropology36 (3): 400–27. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca36.3.07.
46.
RoseHilary. 1983. “Hand, Brain, and Heart: A Feminist Epistemology for the Natural Sciences.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society9 (1): 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1086/494025.
47.
ShapiroNicholasZakariyaNasserRobertsJody A.. 2020. “Beyond the Data Treadmill: Environmental Enumeration, Justice, and Apprehension.” In Toxic Truths, edited by DaviesThomMahAlice, 301–25. Manchester: Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526137005.00030.
VeraLourdes A.BresemanKelseyAlderCole, and EDGI. 2025. “Chapter 13: From the Environmental Right to Know to Environmental Data Justice.” In The Sage Handbook of Data and Society, edited by VenturiniTommasoAckerAmeliaPlantinJean-ChristopheWalfordTone. London: Sage Publications Inc.
55.
VeraLourdes A.WalkerDawnMurphyMichelleMansfieldBeckySiadLadan MohamedOgdenJessica, and EDGI. 2019. “When Data Justice and Environmental Justice Meet: Formulating a Response to Extractive Logic Through Environmental Data Justice.” Information, Communication & Society22 (7): 1012–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1596293.
56.
WalkerDawnNostEricLemelinAaronLaveRebeccaDillonLindsey. 2018. “Practicing Environmental Data Justice: From DataRescue to Data Together.” Geo: Geography and Environment5 (2), https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.61.
57.
WylieSara A.JalbertKirkDosemagenShannonRattoMatt. 2014. “Institutions for Civic Technoscience: How Critical Making Is Transforming Environmental Research.” The Information Society30 (2): 116–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.875783.
