Measuring Environmental Justice for Sustainable Regions

1. Measuring Environmental Justice to Create Sustainable Regions 10.21.14 Madeline Wander, MURP

2. 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: Equitable distribution of environmental burdens and benefits Fair and meaningful participation in decision-making processes

3. WHY ADDRESS EJ? Two key findings: There are disparities in exposures to environmental hazards between racial and socioeconomic groups, which are linked to adverse health risks 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).

4. WHY ADDRESS EJ TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY? 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).

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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”

8. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SCREENING METHOD 4 Categories of Indicators The Cumulative Impact

9. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SCREENING METHOD • 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)

10. 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

12. LAYER 2 – EXPOSURE & HEALTH RISKS INDICATORS • 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

14. LAYER 3 – SOCIAL VULNERAILITY 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 Socio-economic vulnerability Biological vulnerability Political vulnerability

16. LAYER 4 – CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY INDICATORS • % 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 Heat Island Risk Temperature Mobility / social isolation

17. CUMULATIVE IMPACT SCORE • 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)

20. COMMUNITIES USING DATA • 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 Source: Elva Yañez

21. AGENCIES USING DATA

22. FOR MORE, CHECK OUT OUR EQUITY ISSUE BRIEF… http://dornsife.usc.edu/pere/ej-brief/