10.21.14 Madeline Wander, MURP

Measuring Environmental Justice to Create Sustainable Regions

WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE?

Environmental  justice (EJ) is rooted in the belief that all people—regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or income—have the right to a clean and healthy environment in which to live, work, go to school, play, and pray.

EJ ensures:

1. Equitable distribution of environmental burdens and benefits

2. Fair and meaningful participation in decision-making processes

Two key findings:

1. There are disparities in exposures to environmental hazards between racial and socioeconomic groups, which are linked to adverse health risks

2. Patterns of inequality are not just attributable to income or land use – race matters, too

Manuel Pastor, Rachel Morello-Frosch and James Sadd, Still Toxic After All These Years: Air Quality and Environmental Justice in the San Francisco Bay Area (Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Justice, Tolerance and Community, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2007).

WHY ADDRESS EJ?

Q: Why should those who are worried about sustainable regions put the imperative of EJ at the forefront?

A: EJ is good for everybody.

Average exposure by race/ethnicity in Metros with low, medium and high minority discrepancy scores

Source: Michael Ash et al., Is Environmental Justice Good for White Folks? (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Economics, Working Paper 2010-05, July 2010).

WHY ADDRESS EJ TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY?

WHY REGIONS?

The regional scale is key:

• Each region has its own set of industries and pollution problems

• Transportation and land use issues are regional in scale

• Disparities often ‘wash-out’ at the national or even state levels – but are apparent at the regional level

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SCREENING METHOD

Maps where people are exposed

Measures the “cumulative impact” of a variety of factors

All mapping done at the Census tract level

Scoring system: each tract receives “points” related to indicators

Statewide coverage, REGIONAL scoring

Principle Investigators: Rachel Morello-Frosch (UC Berkeley), Manuel Pastor (USC), and Jim Sadd (Occidental College)

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SCREENING METHOD

Co-created with community

Helped identified indicators and priorities

Iterative process, checking in with community along the way

Trained community members in “ground truthing”

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SCREENING METHOD

Proximity to Hazardsand Land Uses

Associated with Air Pollution, and

Sensitive Land Uses

Social and Health

Vulnerability

Indicators

Climate Change Vulnerability Indicators

Health Risk and

Exposure Indicators

The Cumulative

Impact

4 Categories of Indicators

Cumulative Impact Score = Hazard Proximity and Sensitive Land Use Score

(1-5) +

Health Risk and Exposure Score (1-5) +

Social and Health Vulnerability Score (1-5) +

Climate Change Vulnerability Score (1-5)

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SCREENING METHOD

LAYER 1 – HAZARD PROXIMITY INDICATORS

• Facilities reporting Greenhouse Gas emissions and toxic air pollution (about 3,000 facilities)

• Autobody shops• Dry cleaners• Gas stations• Printing/publishing shops

• Rail• Ports• Airports• Refineries• Intermodal distribution facilities• Traffic volume

• Childcare facilities• Hospitals• Senior housing• Schools• Playgrounds and parks• Residential land uses

Industry-wide layers

Land uses

Sensitive land uses

• RSEI (Risk Screening Environmental Indicators) average toxic concentration hazard scores

• Particulate matter estimated concentration• Ozone concentration• Pesticide concentration• NATA (National Air Toxic Assessment )

respiratory hazards from mobile and stationary sources

• NATA inhalation cancer risk

LAYER 2 – EXPOSURE & HEALTH RISKS INDICATORS

• % residents of color• % residents below twice national poverty

level• % renter• Median housing value• % population >24 with less than a high

school education

• % <5 years old and % >60 years old • % pre-term of SGA infants, 2001 – 2006• % >4 in HH where no one >15 speaks

English well

• % votes case among all registered voters averaged for 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010 general elections

LAYER 3 – SOCIAL VULNERAILITY INDICATORS

Socio-economic

vulnerability

Biologicalvulnerabilit

y

Politicalvulnerabilit

y

• % tree canopy• % impervious surface• NLCD, 2001

• Projected max monthly temperature• Change in projected max monthly

temperature• Change in degree-days of warm nights

• % elderly living alone• % car ownership

LAYER 4 – CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY INDICATORS

Heat Island Risk

Temperature

Mobility / social

isolation

Cumulative Impact Score = Hazard Proximity and Sensitive Land Use Score

(1-5) +

Health Risk and Exposure Score (1-5) +

Social and Health Vulnerability Score (1-5) +

Climate Change Vulnerability Score (1-5)

CUMULATIVE IMPACT SCORE

COMMUNITIES USING DATA

Source: Elva Yañez

Example: “Clean Up, Green UP” campaign in Los Angeles

• Campaign aims to provide special assistance to prevent new siting while also helping businesses convert to safer, cleaner processes

• EJSM helped identify environmentally overburdened and socially vulnerable communities

• Researchers have also trained and collaborated with community on data gathering, analysis, and presentation

AGENCIES USING DATA

FOR MORE, CHECK OUT OUR EQUITY ISSUE BRIEF…

http://dornsife.usc.edu/pere/ej-brief/