Visualizing Vulnerabilities and Impacts in Communities Photo: GreenAction Rachel Morello-Frosch UC...
-
Upload
marilyn-hunter -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Visualizing Vulnerabilities and Impacts in Communities Photo: GreenAction Rachel Morello-Frosch UC...
Visualizing Vulnerabilities and Impacts in Communities
Photo: GreenAction
Rachel Morello-FroschUC Berkeley, Department of Environmental Science,
Policy & Management and School of Public Health
Collaborators: Manuel Pastor, University of Southern California, Dept. of GeographyJames Sadd, Occidental College, Dept. of Environmental Sciences
CAPCOA – September 2007
Work supported by California Air Resources Board &US EPA, Region 9, RARE Grant
Science of Environmental Justice - Overview Influence of environmental justice framework on
environmental health science and regulation
Cumulative impact Community & individual vulnerability/resilience
Synergies between these factors that shape environmental health disparities
Segregation as a case study of area-level inequality in pollutant exposures
Birth outcomes as potential area for examining synergies between stressors and pollution exposures
Tomorrow’s Session: Mapping indicators of impact/vulnerability (M. Pastor)
Areas of Scientific Contention in Environmental Justice
EJ advocates have pushed researchers and regulators to operationalize the dynamics of: Cumulative impact from multiple environmental hazards
exposures faced by communities of color and the poor where they live, work, and play.
Community vulnerability to the adverse health effects of pollutants due to simultaneous exposures to psycho-social and physical stressors (e.g. poverty, material deprivation, malnutrition, discrimination)
Regulatory agency response: California Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Justice
Action Plan U.S. EPA Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment
DeFur et al. (2007) Vulnerability as a Function of Individual and Group Resources in Cumulative Risk Assessment, Environmental Health Perspectives 115(5)
Segregation, Social Inequality, and Environmental (In)Justice
Aerial shot of fenceline community along Chevron Refinery in Richmond, CA
Chevron
General Chemical
Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminal
Tosco DistributionBritish Petroleum
National Gypsum
Levin Terminal
California OilsBio-RadLaboratory
Selected Pollution Sources Near Community
Richmond Pkwy
Chevron Refinery Fire – January 2007
Photos: KCBS News
Segregation, Social Inequality, and Environmental (In)Justice
Links spatial inequality and political economy of environmental health by asking: How do legacies of discrimination shape current spatial distributions
of pollution sources among diverse communities? Are observed pollution – health associations modified by measures of
social inequality and material deprivation? Do segregation patterns affect diverse communities differently?
Promotes interdisciplinary approaches Links sociology, city planning, policy and environmental health Moves inquiry upstream with policy-relevant measures of institutional
& socioeconomic drivers of environmental health disparities Changes scale of inquiry– regional focus:
Decisions about economic and industrial development, land use, and transportation tend to be made at a regional or metro level
Basics of Segregation
Describes spatial separation of people by race and (less often) by class
Applies to various contexts Residential Occupational Educational
Measurement Used to characterize racial inequality within a metro area or region Often focuses on dyadic comparisons
(e.g. Black v. White) Can also be considered in context of racial diversity
(e.g. multi-group segregation)
Community-level Impact Individual-level Impact
Community-level Stressors/Buffers
Built EnvironmentLand Use/Zoning
Traffic DensityHousing Quality
Social EnvironmentCivic Engagement/Political Empowerment
Poverty ConcentrationAccess to Services
Food SecurityRegulatory Enforcement Activities
Neighborhood QualitySocial Capital
Individual-level Stressors/Buffers
Social supportPoverty/SES
Working ConditionsHealth Care Access
Diet/Nutritional StatusPsycho-social Stress
Health BehaviorsReproductive Events
PollutantSource
Location
Area LevelContamination
ExposureInternal
DoseHealthEffect
Industrial Facility/Transportation
Corridor
Chemicals Emitted
Indoor/Outdoor Pollution Levels
ChemicalBody Burden Birth Outcome
Response &Resilience
DetoxificationCapacity/DNA
Repair
Ability to Recover
Co-Morbidity/Mortality
How Community and Individual Stressors/Buffers Combine to Shape Exposures and Susceptibility to Environmental Hazards
(Morello-Frosch & Shenassa, EHP, 2006)
Individual Immune Response/Weathering
Chronic Individual Stress
Segregation Measure: Generalized Index of Dissimilarity
Measures segregation across several demographic groups within a metropolitan statistical area (MSA)
Indicator of Spatial ‘Uneveness’
Index varies from 0 (no segregation) to 1 (completely segregated).
even uneven
# people who must move from one census tract to another to attain racial/ethnic balance within a metro area
maximum value of numerator if each racial/ethnic group were completely segregated
Dm =
high
low / moderate
extreme
segregation level
Border States
West Coast
South
regional group
Midwest
Northeast
Mountains & Plains
Multi-Group Racial/Ethnic Segregation in the United States
U.S. EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
Gaussian dispersion model estimates long-term annual average outdoor concentrations for 1996 of 32 air toxics and diesel particulates for each census tract.
The model includes mobile and stationary emissions sources:
Manufacturing (point and area)e.g., refineries, chrome plating
Non-Manufacturing (point and area)e.g., utilities, hospitals, dry cleaners
Mobile (on road and off road)e.g., cars, trucks, air craft, agricultural equipment
Air pollutant concentration estimates allocated to census tract centroids.
Estimating Cancer Risk
Lifetime cancer risk calculated for each pollutant with toxicity information:
Rij = Cij * IURj
Rij = individual lifetime cancer risk from pollutant j in census tract i.
Cij = concentration of HAP j in ug/m3 in census tract i.
IUR = Inhalation Unit Risk: cancer potency associated with continuous lifetime exposure to pollutant j in (ug/m3)-1
Risks summed across pollutants
estimated cancer risk by source,and by racial/ ethnic residential segregation,
continental U. S. metropolitan areas
0
200
400
600
800
1000
all metropolitan areas(n=309)
0.16 to 0.39 0.40 to 0.59 0.60 to 0.82
esti
mat
ed li
feti
me
canc
er r
isk
from
am
bien
t ai
r po
lluta
nts,
1996
NAT
A es
tim
ates
(pe
r m
illio
n re
side
nts)
mobile non-road sources
mobile on-road sources
area sources
point sources
background
low/moderate high extreme
Segregation
Est
imat
ed L
ifetim
e C
ance
r R
isk
(per
mill
ion
resi
dent
s)
small emitters
mobile on-road sources
background
industrial facilities
mobile non-road sources
Estimated cancer risk associated with ambient air toxics by race/ethnicity and racial/ethnic residential segregation,
continental United States metropolitan areas
0
500
1000
1500
2000all
metr
opolit
an
are
as
(n=
30
9)
low
/m
odera
te
hig
h
extr
em
e
segregation (multi-group dissimilarity index)
est
imate
d lifeti
me c
ance
r ri
sk(p
er
mill
ion r
esi
dents
)
totalpopulation
non-HispanicWhites
non-HispanicBlacks
Hispanics
AmericanIndians andAlaska NativesAsians andPacificIslanders
Estimated cancer risk associated with ambient air toxics by race/ethnicity and poverty status,
continental Unites States metropolitan areas
0
500
1000
1500
2000
inco
me less
than p
overt
y
inco
me n
ear
povert
y
inco
me
gre
ate
r th
an
twic
e p
overt
y
est
imate
d lifeti
me c
ance
r ri
sk(p
er
mill
ion r
esi
dents
)
totalpopulation
non-HispanicWhites
non-HispanicBlacks
Hispanics
AmericanIndians andAlaska NativesAsians andPacificIslanders
Relative estimated lifetime cancer incidence associated with ambient air toxics continental United States metropolitan areas (adjusted model)
model adjusted for state regional grouping; metropolitan area population size; county voter turnout; census tract population density, poverty rate, and material deprivation
highly segregated extremely segregated
hazard ratio
hazard ratio
total population 1.04 ( 1.01 - 1.07 ) 1.32 ( 1.28 - 1.36 )
non-Hispanic Whites 1.04 ( 1.01 - 1.08 ) 1.28 ( 1.24 - 1.33 )
non-Hispanic Blacks 1.09 ( 0.98 - 1.21 ) 1.38 ( 1.24 - 1.53 )
Hispanics (all races) 1.09 ( 1.01 - 1.17 ) 1.74 ( 1.61 - 1.88 )
non-Hispanic American Indians & Alaska Natives 1.02 ( 0.77 - 1.35 ) 1.21 ( 0.90 - 1.64 )
non-Hispanic Asians & Pacific Islanders 1.10 ( 0.97 - 1.24 ) 1.32 ( 1.16 - 1.51 )*Risk Ratios use low segregation as reference group
95% conf. interval
95% conf. interval
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
hazard
rati
o
Individual and area-level drivers of environmental health inequalities – birth outcomes and air pollution (course PM)
Mural Photo: R. Morello-Frosch
Individual stressors can:
Affect birth outcomes directly (well studied) e.g., health behaviors, inter-pregnancy interval, access to adequate
health care, poverty, discrimination (using race as a crude proxy)
Enhance individual susceptibility to the toxic effects of pollutants (not extensively studied)
Bell et al., EHP, 2007: effect modification by race for association between PM2.5 and decrease in birth weight among black versus white mothers
Place-based stressors can: Affect birth outcomes directly (fairly well studied)
e.g. neighborhood poverty, material deprivation, income inequality, and segregation
Enhance susceptibility to the toxic effects of pollutants (not extensively studied)
Ponce et al., EHP, 2005: effect modification with neighborhood disadvantage for association between traffic density and risk of pre-term birth during winter season
Effect modification: Ponce et al EHP (2005)
DWTD and preterm deliveryLos Angeles 1994-1996
0.2
0.6
1
1.4
1.8
Summer Winter Summer Winter
OR
(95%
CI)
Low Neighborhood SES
High Neighborhood SES
Relationship between PMcoarse and birth weight
California Births from 1996-2003 Air pollution estimates for each live birth in the
dataset, according to the mother's residence at the time of birth within 2 kilometers of a CalAIRS monitor
Developed single and multiple pollutant models to assess air pollution effects on birth weight
Used individual and area-level SES measures to examine confounding and effect modification
Possible Biological Mechanisms - PM
Particulate matter
Altered immunity
Endocrine disruption
InfectionPreterm labor,
IUGR
Miscarriage, preterm labor
Lower progesterone
production
Th1 dominanceSlowed
embryonic development
B. Ritz, ISEE 2007
Change in birthweight, per 10 μg/m3 of coarse particulate matter,assessed within 2km, by quartiles of exposure
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
0 - 2
5%
25 -
50%
50 -
75%
75 -
100%
chan
ge in
bir
thw
eigh
t per
10μ
m/m3 o
f PM
coa
rse
Change in birthweight, per 10 μg/m3 increase in coarse particulate matter(within 2km distance of monitor)
-60.0
-50.0
-40.0
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
chan
ge i
n bi
rthw
eigh
t in
gra
ms
per
10μ
m/m3
of
PM
co
arse
Individual factors = maternal race, marital status, education, age, parity, gestational age, infant sex, prenatal care, pregnancy risk factors, season and year of birth.
Neighborhood factors = unemployment, education, poverty, home ownership
N= 2,579,123 births
Change in birthweight, per 10 μg/m3 increase of coarse particulate matter by race/ethnicity
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
tota
l pop
ulat
ion
(PM
cour
se)
His
pani
cs (
PMco
urse
)
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an (
PMco
urse
)
Asi
ans
& P
acif
ic I
slan
ders
(PM
cour
se)
Whi
tes
(PM
cour
se)
Bel
l et a
l 200
7 A
f. A
m (
PM2.
5)
Bel
l et a
l 200
7 W
hite
s (P
M 2
.5)
chan
ge in
bir
thw
eigh
t per
10μ
m/m3 o
f P
M c
oars
e
Change in birthweight, per 10 μg/m3 of coarse particulate matter,by county income inequality
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
all c
ount
ies
med
ium
/low
Gin
i cou
ntie
s
(0.2
9 -
0.34
)
high
Gin
i cou
ntie
s
(0.3
4 -
0.36
)
chan
ge in
bir
thw
eigh
t per
10μ
m/m3 o
f PM
coa
rse
Implications for future work Evidence suggests spatial forms of social
inequality are associated with: Worse environmental quality across demographic lines Increased racial inequalities in pollution burdens
Indicators of social inequality and discrimination may reveal enhanced pollution/health outcome relationships in certain populations E.g. individuals or communities faced with chronic
socioeconomic stressors may be at higher risk of adverse health consequences of pollution exposures
Implications (cont.)
Macro-level Questions : Development of policy-relevant surrogates for
measures of impact and vulnerability Traffic/truck data as a surrogate for pollution
exposures of concern Area measures of social inequality, access to health
care as indicators of neighborhood vulnerability Examine different geographic scales that may be
more relevant for regulation and policy? E.g. zoning and facility siting decisions affect pollution
stream distributions among diverse communities and tend to operate regionally
Intervention points would focus on -- land use planning, industrial and transportation development
Four Policy/Regulatory Principles Consider cumulative impacts – move beyond facility-
by-facility regulation to holistic approaches that consider the community as the basic unit of analysis
Take into account social vulnerability – consider neighborhood stressors together with exposures/risk in regulatory programs and decision-making
Promote community participation – assessments of cumulative impact and vulnerability must involve input from and ongoing engagement of community residents.
Take meaningful action – precaution dictates that policy-relevant indicators of impact and vulnerability should guide decision-making in order to protect health and eliminate environmental health inequalities
What Is To Be Done?