AIR QUALITY AND EQUITY Dr Gordon Mitchell The

AIR QUALITY AND EQUITY Dr. Gordon Mitchell The School of Geography and Institute for Transport Studies, The University of Leeds g. mitchell@leeds. ac. uk Leeds Air Quality and Health Interest Group 27 th Jan 2004

The Presentation Ø An Introduction to Environmental Equity Ø Environmental § UK § Leeds Ø Emerging Ø Issues (air quality) equity examples: Policy responses in Environmental Equity Analysis 2

AN INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY

Sustainable Development Trade-Offs ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ion dat gra ibu tio n SUST. DEVT. str ldi De Growth vs. Environment Ma Equity vs. Growth Stagnation SOCIAL JUSTICE EQUITY vs. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 4

Environmental equity : a global issue…. …and a growing local concern. . . 5

Environmental Equity in the USA Ø Environmental equity concerns grew from civil rights movement Ø Concern over siting of hazardous facilities Ø Very strong protests over race/poverty bias Ø Inadequate empirical evidence of bias 6

ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY EXAMPLE #1: AIR QUALITY IN BRITAIN

Air Quality and Equity Ø Prior UK studies: § § § § Ø Stevenson 1998 (NO 2, wards, London, income) Mc. Leod 2000 (3 pollutants, LA districts, social class; ethnicity) NETCEN 2000 (2 pollutants, 5 UK cities, IMD) NETCEN 2001 (2 pollutants, 4 UK cities, IMD) Pennycook 2001 (2 pollutants, Bradford wards, IMD) Lyons 2002 (NO 2, W. Glamorgan, social class) Brainard 2002 (2 pollutants, Birmingham EDs, IMD) Small body of research with conflicting conclusions due to heterogeneity (pollutants, scales, study areas, methods, target populations) 8

Study Objectives Ø To address conflicting results of past UK studies through small area - national analyses Ø To test two common assumptions: § Disadvantaged groups are resident in areas with highest pollutant concentrations § The poor largely bear the pollution costs of the affluent (Higman, 1999) 9

Data and Methods Ø Study Area - All 10, 444 wards in Britain Ø Air quality - Mean annual NO 2 per ward centroid from NETCEN 1999 1 km grid map Ø Disadvantaged groups: The Poor § Non-car owners § Children (not discussed here) § 10

1999 annual mean NO 2 ug/m 3 Poverty Analysis Most deprived AND least deprived experience above average NO 2 exposure ‘Affluent’ wards ‘Poor’ wards 1027 wards per poverty decile bars denote 5 - 95 percentile % Households in poverty (BB Index) 11

Car Ownership Analysis 1999 annual mean NO 2 ug/m 3 Wards with few cars are most polluted, hence: “Traffic pollution is caused by the better off, but the poor feel its effects” (Higman, 1999). True? ‘Many cars’ wards ‘Few cars’ wards 1027 wards per no car decile Bars denote 95% CI % Households with no car 12

The affluent pollute the poor? Ø Annual NOx emission from vehicles estimated (crudely) for all GB wards: § DVLA postcoded vehicle data § 35 vehicle groups (age / cc / fuel type) § MEET NOx emission factors at 55 kph (older cars emit more) § MEET UK age-distance correction (older cars travel less) 13

Emission Analysis Ø Less cars and car use in ‘poor’ wards is balanced by use of older more polluting vehicles Ø Deprived wards make significant contributions to vehicle emissions Vehicle NOx emission (tonnes / yr / ward) % households in poverty 14

But inequality does occur. . Wards of worst air quality emit least AND are the most deprived 10, 270 wards 15

‘Exceedence’ wards (NO 2, Eng. ) Mitchell and Walker forthcoming (Env Agency) Of 2. 5 million people in ward with mean annual NO 2 > 40 ug/m 3, >50% are in the most deprived 20% of population. 16

Temporal Change (NO 2 exceedence) Mitchell and Walker forthcoming (Env Agency) 17

Pollution-Poverty ‘Hot spots’ Ø Application § Can guide remediation strategies or further analysis § Requires agreement on variables & thresholds applied Ø Selection § criteria (example) AQ Index > 1. 5 (c. 800 wards, 7. 5 M people) AND most deprived wards (decile 1, with 10% of pop. ) Ø Hot-spots identified § MAJOR: (> 5 wards) London, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield. § MINOR (1 - 5 wards) : Bristol, Derby, Thurrock, Leeds, Leicester, Luton, Tyneside, W. Midlands, Huddersfield 18

Conclusions from UK analysis Ø The most and least deprived experience above average NO 2, but the poor experience the worst AQ of all, bearing a highly disproportionate burden of peak concentrations, including exceedences (X 10) Ø The poor experience the worst air quality, but also contribute significantly to emissions (i. e. EJ requires careful interpretation) Ø Air quality policy to tackle injustice could focus on ‘hotspots’ - but how should they be defined - e. g. High deprivation and high concentration, or § High deprivation, high concentration and low emission? § 19

AIR QUALITY EQUITY EXAMPLE #2: Responses to transport strategies in Leeds

The Leeds Study Ø EPSRC-DETR Ø Air § § § project with Leeds CC quality impact of transport strategies: Cordon charging (Single and Double) Distance charging (Charges at 2 -20 p/km) Network development (Do-All, Do-Min) Clean fuel promotion Do-nothing, “business as usual” 1993 -2015 Ø Modelling method Traffic modelling using SATURN inc. SATTAX § Air quality modelled using TEMMS + ADMS § 21

The Env. Equity Analysis Ø Data on a 200 m grid: - modelled annual NO 2 - deprivation index Ø Analysis to assess: - environmental equity - env equity responses to transport options 22

Annual mean NO 2 ug/m 3 Env. Equity under ‘Do-nothing’ N=1851 ‘Affluent’ Deprivation Index ‘Poor’ 23

2005 annual mean NO 2 ug/m 3 Env Equity Under Road Pricing N=1851 ‘Affluent’ Deprivation Index ‘Poor’ 24

Disease burden from NO 2, 1993 Total NO 2 DB in Leeds = 96 RHA / yr • Equity pattern consistent with that seen for NO 2 25

Leeds Case Study Conclusions Ø The ‘poor’ in Leeds suffer significantly greater NO 2 concentrations than people of average or above average means Ø Change in inequality is (predicted to be) strongly proportional to change in city-wide air quality Ø All transport options that improve city-wide air quality reduce inequality, including road pricing, but design details are important (e. g. network development vs. RUC). 26

Recommendations (Air Quality) Ø Support efforts to understand the nature & significance of env. inequalities, & measures to reduce unacceptable inequalities Ø Support LAs seeking to meet NAQS objectives Ø Identify 'poverty-pollution hotspots’ and focus efforts to improve air quality in these areas Ø Investigate the equity implications of AQMAs and LTPs Ø Develop technical guidance on equity appraisal (new devt. ) Ø Work to ensure that equity appraisal is adopted in the environmental assessment process (EIA and SEA) 27

RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUITY

USA Ø Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order : “Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority and low income populations”. Ø Must address: “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of policies, programs and activities on minority and low income populations” 29

30

US guidance emerging via: Ø Federal working groups and enforcement actions (e. g. EPA TWG on EJ assessment of actions proposed re Clean Air Act compliance) Ø Public participation (e. g. in NEPA process) Ø Litigation and class actions 31

Europe Ø UN ECE Aarhus Convention on the Environment (adopted 1998, ratified Oct 2001) § Public access to environmental information (Directive proposed June 2001) § Public participation in environmental plans and programmes (Directive proposed Jan 2001) § Access to justice in environmental matters (Directive proposals under discussion) 32

UK Ø Major Political commitment: E+W - Prime Minister and M Beckett (DEFRA) § Scotland : Mc. Connell, First Minister § Ø Government § § § response ODPM - NRU ‘policy mapping’; Env in IMD DEFRA - co-ordinating cross dept. EE agenda Scottish Executive (Programme; EJ in SEA) SD commission (Key theme) Environment Agency (Programme) 33

UK evidence base Ø Some empirical analyses : Air quality (mostly cities by ward) § Landfill sites and health impacts § Hazardous industrial facilities § Ø Extending the evidence base Environment Agency study (Walker & Mitchell) § SNIFFER (2004 - 2005) § Others - e. g. Fo. E, JRF, OECD studies § 34

ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY ANALYSIS

Measuring Inequality Ø Technical § § § § Issues: Which env. issues? (positive and negative) Environmental justice for who? What is the appropriate spatial unit of analysis? How large should the study area be? Env. metrics: exposure or adverse effect? Multiple, cumulative and indirect impacts Assessing not just facilities, but plans & policies Ø i. e - need for agreed assessment methods 36

Identifying Injustice Ø Understanding § Ø Is causation: Inequalities as a product of neighbourhood transition processes (e. g. chicken and egg), or discrimination? inequality unjust? How unequal is unfair? § Which justice theory (Rawlsian, Utilitarian etc. ) should be used to interpret the inequality § 37

Addressing Injustice Ø Building environmental equity / justice assessments into policy and plan evaluation (i. e. all SD trade-offs) Ø Ensure public involvement in equity issues: Scoping (e. g. identifying target groups / issues) § Reviewing appraisals § Agreeing mitigation measures § 38

Publications Mitchell, G. and Dorling, D. (2003). An Environmental Justice Analysis of British Air Quality, Environment and Planning A, 35, 909 -929 Mitchell, G. (forthcoming). The Response of Urban Air Quality to Strategic Road Transport Initiatives: An Environmental Justice Analysis of Leeds, UK. Transportation Research Part D Mitchell, G. , Namdeo, A. , May, A. D. and Milne, D. (forthcoming). Road User Charging and Urban Air Quality: An Empirical Analysis of Leeds, UK. Transportation Research Part D Mitchell, G. , Namdeo, A. , May, A. D. and Milne, D. (2003). The Air Quality Implications of Urban Road User Charging. Transport Engineering and Control, Feb, 352 -357. 39

Publications Mitchell, G and Walker, G. (In press) Environmental Quality and Social Deprivation. R&D Technical Report E 2 -067/1/TR, The Environment Agency, Bristol, 61 pp, ISBN 1 8443 221 9 Walker, G. , Mitchell, G. , Fairburn, J. and Smith, G. (In press) Environmental Quality and Social Deprivation. Phase II: National Analysis of Flood Hazard, IPC Industries and Air Quality. R&D Project Record E 2 -067/1/PR 1, The Environment Agency, Bristol, 133 pp, ISBN 1 8443 222 X Mitchell, G. and Walker, G. (In press) Environmental Quality and Social Deprivation. Phase I: A Review of Research and Analytical Methods. R&D Project Record E 2 -067/1/PR 2, The Environment Agency, Bristol, 107 pp, ISBN 1 8443 22 246 Mitchell, G. and Walker, G. (Forthcoming) Methodological Issues in the Assessment of Environmental Equity and Environmental Justice. In: Deakin et al. , (Eds. ) Sustainable development: the assessment methods, E F Spon. 40

Thank you for listening…. . for more information contact: Dr Gordon Mitchell School of Geography The University of Leeds, UK, LS 2 9 JT g. mitchell@leeds. ac. uk www. geog. leeds. ac. uk/airqual

42

All wards (NO 2, England) 43

1999 annual mean NO 2 ug/m 3 Age Analysis Few of age group in ward Age decile Many of age group in ward 44

Ratio NO 2 in upper & lower age decile Age Analysis #2 Children have higher NO 2 exposure…. …. . due to parental location choices Inequality but probably not injustice Above average NO 2 Below average NO 2 Age 45