Presentation on theme: "10.21.14 Madeline Wander, MURP Measuring Environmental Justice to Create Sustainable Regions."— Presentation transcript:
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 , 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 Hazards and 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 % 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 Biological vulnerability Political vulnerability
% 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