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

27th Jan 2004

2 / 38

The Presentation An Introduction to Environmental Equity

Environmental (air quality) equity examples: UK Leeds

Emerging Policy responses

Issues in Environmental Equity Analysis

AN INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY

4 / 38

Sustainable Development Trade-Offs

Stagnation

Deg

rada

tion

Maldistribution

SUST. DEVT.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

SOCIAL JUSTICE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EQUITY vs. ENVIRONMENT

Growth vs. Environment

Equity vs. Growth

5 / 38

Environmental equity : a global issue….

…and a growing local concern...

6 / 38

Environmental Equity in the USA Environmental equity

concerns grew from civil rights movement

Concern over siting of hazardous facilities

Very strong protests over race/poverty bias

Inadequate empirical evidence of bias

ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY EXAMPLE #1:

AIR QUALITY IN BRITAIN

8 / 38

Air Quality and Equity Prior UK studies:

Stevenson 1998 (NO2, wards, London, income) McLeod 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 (NO2, 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)

9 / 38

Study Objectives

To address conflicting results of past UK studies through small area - national analyses

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)

10 / 38

Data and Methods

Study Area - All 10,444 wards in Britain

Air quality - Mean annual NO2 per ward centroid from NETCEN 1999 1 km grid map

Disadvantaged groups: The Poor Non-car owners Children (not discussed here)

11 / 38

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Poverty Analysis19

99 a

nnua

l mea

n N

O2 u

g/m

3

% Households in poverty (BB Index)

1027 wards per poverty decilebars denote 5- 95 percentile

‘Affluent’ wards ‘Poor’ wards

Most deprived AND least deprived experience above average NO2 exposure

12 / 38

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Car Ownership Analysis19

99 a

nnua

l mea

n N

O2 u

g/m

3

% Households with no car

1027 wards per no car decile

Bars denote 95% CI

‘Many cars’ wards ‘Few cars’ wards

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?

13 / 38

The affluent pollute the poor?

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)

14 / 38

Emission Analysis

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40

Less cars and car use in ‘poor’ wards is balanced by use of older more polluting vehicles

Deprived wards make significant contributions to vehicle emissions

Vehicle NOx emission

(tonnes / yr / ward)

% households in poverty

15 / 38

1

2

34

5

S1

S2S3

S4S5

10

20

30

40

Households in poverty (%)

NO2 concentration

quintile

NOX emission

quintile

30-4020-3010-20

But inequality does occur....Wards of worst air quality emit least AND are the most deprived

10,270 wards

16 / 38

‘Exceedence’ wards (NO2, Eng.)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Deprivation Decile

Po

pu

lati

on

(th

ou

san

ds)

in

NO 2

ex

ce

ed

en

ce w

ard

Mitchell and Walker forthcoming (Env Agency)

Of 2.5 million people in ward with mean annual NO2 > 40ug/m3, >50% are in the

most deprived 20% of population.

17 / 38

Temporal Change (NO2 exceedence)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Cummulative deprivation (%)(% of total population, ordered by decreasing deprivation status)

Cu

mm

ula

tive

po

pu

lati

on

(%

) fr

om

w

ard

s w

her

e N

O2

> 4

0 u

g/m

3

Line of equality

NO2 2001

NO2 2010

Gini Index of Concentration 2001 - 0.47 2010 - 0.25

Mitchell and Walker forthcoming (Env Agency)

18 / 38

Pollution-Poverty ‘Hot spots’ Application

Can guide remediation strategies or further analysis Requires agreement on variables & thresholds applied

Selection criteria (example) AQ Index > 1.5 (c. 800 wards, 7.5 M people) AND most

deprived wards (decile 1, with 10% of pop.)

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

19 / 38

Conclusions from UK analysis The most and least deprived experience above average NO2,

but the poor experience the worst AQ of all, bearing a highly disproportionate burden of peak concentrations, including exceedences (X 10)

The poor experience the worst air quality, but also contribute significantly to emissions (i.e. EJ requires careful interpretation)

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?

AIR QUALITY EQUITY EXAMPLE #2:

Responses to transport strategies in Leeds

21 / 38

The Leeds Study EPSRC-DETR project with Leeds CC

Air 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

Modelling method Traffic modelling using SATURN inc. SATTAX Air quality modelled using TEMMS + ADMS

22 / 38

The Env. Equity Analysis

Data on a 200m grid:

- modelled annual NO2

- deprivation index

Analysis to assess:

- environmental equity

- env equity responses to transport options

NO2 Annual Mean(ug/m3)

4035302824222018

Townsend Deprivation Index

5 to 102.5 to 50 to 2.5

-2.5 to 0-5 to -2.5

-10 to -5

23 / 38

Env. Equity under ‘Do-nothing’

15

20

25

30

35

40

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

1993

2005

2015

Ann

ual m

ean

NO

2 ug/

m3

Deprivation Index‘Affluent’ ‘Poor’

N=1851

24 / 38

Env Equity Under Road Pricing

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

No charge 2p/km

Single cordon 10p/km

Double cordon 20p/km

2005

ann

ual m

ean

NO

2 ug/

m3

Deprivation Index‘Affluent’ ‘Poor’

N=1851

25 / 38

Disease burden from NO2, 1993

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-2.8 -1.6 -0.8 0.1 1.0 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.4 4.3

Deprivation Index (Townsend by equal count decile)

RH

A a

ttri

bu

ted

to

NO

2 Total NO2 DB in Leeds = 96 RHA / yr

• Equity pattern consistent with that seen for NO2

26 / 38

Leeds Case Study Conclusions The ‘poor’ in Leeds suffer significantly greater NO2

concentrations than people of average or above average means

Change in inequality is (predicted to be) strongly proportional to change in city-wide air quality

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).

27 / 38

Recommendations (Air Quality) Support efforts to understand the nature & significance of

env. inequalities, & measures to reduce unacceptable inequalities

Support LAs seeking to meet NAQS objectives

Identify 'poverty-pollution hotspots’ and focus efforts to improve air quality in these areas

Investigate the equity implications of AQMAs and LTPs

Develop technical guidance on equity appraisal (new devt.)

Work to ensure that equity appraisal is adopted in the environmental assessment process (EIA and SEA)

RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUITY

29 / 38

USA Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order :

“Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority and low income populations”.

Must address:

“disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of policies, programs and activities on minority and low income populations”

30 / 38

31 / 38

US guidance emerging via:

Federal working groups and enforcement actions (e.g. EPA TWG on EJ assessment of actions proposed re Clean Air Act compliance)

Public participation (e.g. in NEPA process)

Litigation and class actions

32 / 38

Europe

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)

33 / 38

UK

Major Political commitment: E+W - Prime Minister and M Beckett (DEFRA) Scotland : McConnell, First Minister

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)

34 / 38

UK evidence base Some empirical analyses :

Air quality (mostly cities by ward) Landfill sites and health impacts Hazardous industrial facilities

Extending the evidence base Environment Agency study (Walker & Mitchell) SNIFFER (2004 - 2005) Others - e.g. FoE, JRF, OECD studies

ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY ANALYSIS

36 / 38

Measuring Inequality 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

i.e - need for agreed assessment methods

37 / 38

Identifying Injustice

Understanding causation: Inequalities as a product of neighbourhood

transition processes (e.g. chicken and egg), or discrimination?

Is inequality unjust? How unequal is unfair? Which justice theory (Rawlsian, Utilitarian etc.)

should be used to interpret the inequality

38 / 38

Addressing Injustice

Building environmental equity / justice assessments into policy and plan evaluation (i.e. all SD trade-offs)

Ensure public involvement in equity issues: Scoping (e.g. identifying target groups / issues) Reviewing appraisals Agreeing mitigation measures

39 / 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.

40 / 38

Publications Mitchell, G and Walker, G. (In press) Environmental Quality and Social Deprivation. R&D Technical Report E2-067/1/TR, The Environment Agency, Bristol, 61pp, 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 E2-067/1/PR1, The Environment Agency, Bristol, 133pp, ISBN 1 8443 222X

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 E2-067/1/PR2, The Environment Agency, Bristol, 107pp, 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.

Thank you for listening…..for more information contact:

Dr Gordon MitchellSchool of GeographyThe University of Leeds, UK, LS2 9JT

g.mitchell@leeds.ac.ukwww.geog.leeds.ac.uk/airqual

42 / 38

43 / 38

All wards (NO2, England)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Deprivation decile

Me

an

wa

rd m

ea

n N

O2

co

nc

en

tra

tio

n

(ug

/m3 )

44 / 38

Age Analysis

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Babies

Teenagers

Middle aged

Pensioners

1999

ann

ual m

ean

NO

2 u

g/m

3

Age decileFew of age group in ward

Many of age group in ward

45 / 38

Age Analysis #2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Rat

io N

O2 in

upp

er &

low

er a

ge d

ecile

Age

Above average NO2

Below average NO2

Children have higher NO2 exposure….

…..due to parental location choices

Inequality but probably not

injustice