Australia's first national level quantitative environmental justice ...

Download Australia's first national level quantitative environmental justice ...

Post on 12-Feb-2017

216 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

    Download details:

    This content was downloaded by: donnalisagreen

    IP Address: 129.94.166.82

    This content was downloaded on 22/04/2014 at 01:00

    Please note that terms and conditions apply.

    Australias first national level quantitative environmental justice assessment of industrial air

    pollution

    View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

    2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 044010

    (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/4/044010)

    Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

    iopscience.iop.org/page/termshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/4http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326http://iopscience.iop.org/http://iopscience.iop.org/searchhttp://iopscience.iop.org/collectionshttp://iopscience.iop.org/journalshttp://iopscience.iop.org/page/aboutioppublishinghttp://iopscience.iop.org/contacthttp://iopscience.iop.org/myiopscience

  • Environmental Research Letters

    Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 044010 (10pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/4/044010

    Australias first national level quantitativeenvironmental justice assessment ofindustrial air pollutionJayajit Chakraborty1 and Donna Green2,3

    1 School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA2 Climate Change Research Centre and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science,University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

    E-mail: jchakrab@usf.edu and donna.green@unsw.edu.au

    Received 15 January 2014, revised 16 March 2014Accepted for publication 17 March 2014Published 11 April 2014

    AbstractThis study presents the first national level quantitative environmental justice assessment ofindustrial air pollution in Australia. Specifically, our analysis links the spatial distribution ofsites and emissions associated with industrial pollution sources derived from the NationalPollution Inventory, to Indigenous status and social disadvantage characteristics ofcommunities derived from Australian Bureau of Statistics indicators. Our results reveal a clearnational pattern of environmental injustice based on the locations of industrial pollutionsources, as well as volume, and toxicity of air pollution released at these locations.Communities with the highest number of polluting sites, emission volume, andtoxicity-weighted air emissions indicate significantly greater proportions of Indigenouspopulation and higher levels of socio-economic disadvantage. The quantities and toxicities ofindustrial air pollution are particularly higher in communities with the lowest levels ofeducational attainment and occupational status. These findings emphasize the need for moredetailed analysis in specific regions and communities where socially disadvantaged groups aredisproportionately impacted by industrial air pollution. Our empirical findings also underscorethe growing necessity to incorporate environmental justice considerations in environmentalplanning and policy-making in Australia.

    Keywords: environmental justice, Australia, quantitative, industrial air pollution

    1. Introduction

    The disproportionate distribution of environmental goodsand bads in relation to the ethnic or socio-economic sta-tus of nearby communities has been well-established in theinternational literature through the use of an environmentaljustice framework, as previously noted in a special editionof this journal (Stephens 2007). Environmental injustice isdefined broadly as the unequal distribution of environmental

    3 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.Content from this work may be used under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further

    distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and thetitle of the work, journal citation and DOI.

    risks and benefits, with the burden of the risks and the dearth ofthe benefits falling mainly on racial and/or ethnic minorities,low-income populations, and other socially disadvantagedindividuals.

    The United Church of Christs Commission for RacialJustice (UCC 1987) provided the first comprehensive nationallevel analysis of racial, ethnic and economic inequities inthe distribution of environmental hazards in the US. Usingzip-code level data, this study found the presence of com-mercial hazardous waste facilities and uncontrolled wastesites to be significantly associated with a higher percentageof the racial minority population, lower household incomeand lower housing values across the nation. These findingswere investigated and confirmed by numerous studies that

    1748-9326/14/044010+10$33.00 1 c 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/4/044010mailto:jchakrab@usf.edumailto:donna.green@unsw.edu.auhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0

  • Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 044010 J Chakraborty and D Green

    provided empirical support regarding the widespread practiceof locating polluting industries in low-income and non-whiteneighborhoods (Bullard 1990, Bryant and Mohai 1992, Brown1995, Mohai et al2009b, Schlosberg and Carruthers 2010).

    These case studies, and related evidence, led to theimplementation of policies at the national, state and locallevel, including an Executive Order issued by President Clintonin 1994 that required environmental justice concerns to beconsidered in the decision-making processes for industrialactivities that would significantly affect the environment. By2007, the US Office of Environmental Justice had distributedmore than 800 grants to local groups working to improveenvironmental justice outcomes. These groups started theirown pollution assessments to confirm industry emission datathrough low cost, but certifiable, citizen science activities suchas the Bucket Brigades (LABB, no date, Sandler and Pezzullo2007). In less than three decades, environmental justice hasgone from being a fledgling research field to a mainstreamand necessary component of US environmental planning andpolicy.

    In significant contrast to the activities in the US, thereexists no comprehensive quantitative analysis that drawstogether these environmental and social justice concerns atthe national level in Australia (Arcioni and Mitchell 2005,Byrne and MacCallum 2013, Lloyd-Smith and Bell 2003).This is despite an obvious and growing need for such researchto occur, with a number of well-documented sites of massiveindustrial pollution that have disproportionately affectedindividuals of lower socio-economic status and Indigenouscommunitiessuch as mining and smelting emissions inMt Isa (Mackay et al2013, Munksgaard et al2010, Taylorand Schniering 2010) and Port Pirie (EDO 2012, McMichaelet al1986, Taylor et al2013). This is not just an historic issue,since similar concerns are being raised about decisions tolocate future toxic sites, such as the planned radioactive wastedump on Aboriginal land at Muckaty Station in the NorthernTerritory (EJS, no date, Millner 2011).

    The analysis herein addresses this research gap by pre-senting the first national assessment of spatial and socialinequalities in the distribution of industrial air pollution inAustralia. This research integrates air emissions data from theNational Pollutant Inventory (NPI) for the period 20112012with information on the Indigenous status of the populationand social disadvantage indices derived from the AustralianBureau of Statistics (ABS) 2011. Our study seeks to determinewhether socially disadvantaged populations are dispropor-tionately proximate to industrial air pollution. This approachdeliberately mirrors the US methods and analysis that use theToxic Release Inventory (TRI) and socio-demographic censusdata, in order to facilitate a consideration of the Australiancase alongside existing US studies (Howes 2001). To providea framework for this national level Australian assessment,we focus on the relationship between the extent of socialdisadvantage and four specific indicators of industrial airpollution. These include: (a) the presence/absence of NPI sitesemitting air pollutants; (b) the number of NPI sites emittingair pollutants; (c) the total volume of air emissions from NPIsites; and (d) the toxicity-weighted volume of air pollution,based on the NPI toxicity rating (NEPC 1999, appendix III),released from NPI sites.

    2. Data and methods

    2.1. Air pollution data

    Air pollution data for this study comes from the most recentset of industry supplied estimates provided to the NationalPollution Inventory (NPI 2013). Of the entire set of toxicreleases available from the NPI (i.e. to air, water and land), wechose to focus on airborne emissions for two reasons. First,atmospheric emissions represent the majority of all releasedchemicals in the NPI. Second, emissions to air are most likelyto result in actual human exposure and least dependent onhuman behaviors for exposure to occur (Daniels and Friedman1999, National Research Council 1991).

    The NPI is a joint Commonwealth-State program that hasprovided open-access estimates of toxic emissions data fromgovernment and industrial sources since 2000. Initially theinventory was modeled on the US TRI, although the range ofincluded pollutants was somewhat smaller. The NPI TechnicalAdvisory Panel final report (NEPC 1999) suggested an initiallist of 36 substances. It was later expanded to the current list of90 substances, which remains a significantly smaller numberthan the 682 on the TRI (TRI 2013).

    The NPI allocates a toxicity rating for each chemicalbased on its impact on human health, its impact on theenvironment and the risk to its exposure, in order to rankpollutants and select the most important ones for furtherconsideration (NEPC 1999). The downloadable datasheetshosted on the NPI website provide geo-referenced data foreach emission of every chemical over a specific threshold, andan estimation of the annual emissions of each of the rankedchemicals. Emissions calculations are made by the polluterusing estimation handbooks for each chemical, which are alsohosted on the NPI website (NPI 2013). The data for this studyincluded estimations from the year 20112012.

    2.2. Social disadvantage data

    The potential social inequities in the distribution of industrialair pollution were analyzed using a set of variables fromthe Census of Population and Housing (ABS 2011) at theStatistical Area Level 2 (SA2). The SA2s are geographicunits with an average population of about 10 000 persons(with a range of 300025 000) that cover the entire nationwithout gaps or overlaps. With these divisions, they aim to,represent a community that interacts together socially andeconomically (ABS 2013a). To ensure stable estimates forour social disadvantage variables, we excluded 112 SA2s withvery small population counts. Our study uses the remaining2110 SA2 units where the usual resident population is morethan, or equal to, 10 persons.

    We used five specific measures to capture the multipledimensions of social disadvantage. As the Indigenous Aus-tralian population is one of the most socially disadvantagedgroups in Australia (AIHW 2011), we used the percentage ofindividuals self-identifying as Aboriginal and/or Torres StraitIslander as the first indicator. To measure socio-economicstatus, an important focus of environmental justice advocacyand research, we relied on the Socio-Economic Indexes for

    2

  • Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 044010 J Chakraborty and D Green

    Table 1. Socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA): definitions and interpretations (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013b.).

    InterpretationIndex name Definition Low score High score

    Index of relativesocio-economic disadvantage(IRSD)

    Summarizes a range ofinformation about theeconomic and socialconditions of people andhouseholds within an area;only measures relativedisadvantage.

    Relatively greaterdisadvantage

    A relative lack ofdisadvantage

    Index of relativesocio-economic advantageand disadvantage (IRSAD)

    Summarizes informationabout the economic andsocial conditions of peopleand households within anarea, including both relativeadvantage and disadvantagemeasures.

    Relatively greaterdisadvantage and a lackof advantage

    Relative lack of disadvantageand greater advantage

    Index of economic resources(IER)

    Focuses on the financialaspects of relativesocio-economic advantageand disadvantage, bysummarizing variablesrelated to income and wealth.

    Relative lack of access toeconomic resources

    Relatively greater access toeconomic resources

    Index of education andoccupation (IEO)

    Designed to reflect theeducational and occupationallevel of communities.

    Relatively lower educationand occupation status ofpeople.

    Relatively higher educationand occupation status ofpeople.

    Areas (SEIFA)a suite of four indexes updated each censusby the ABS to rank geographic areas according to their relativesocio-economic advantage and disadvantage (ABS 2013b).For each SEIFA index, every SA2 is given a SEIFA score thatmeasures how relatively advantaged or disadvantaged thatarea is compared with the other areas.

    While several specific individual variables (e.g., annualincome, poverty rate and median housing value) have beenused in the environmental justice research literature to assessthe socio-economic status of communities, each SEIFA indexrepresents a summary measure that focuses on one particu-lar dimension of socio-economic disadvantage/advantage andencompasses a range of relevant census variables. The defi-nitions of the SEIFA indexes used in this study are providedin table 1. Each index score is a weighted combination ofmultiple variables from the 2011 census, and is constructedusing principal components analysis (ABS 2013b).

    2.3. Methods

    To determine how air pollution is related to social disadvantagedata on NPI sites and their emission-related attributes werespatially aggregated to each of the 2110 SA2 areas representingour units of analysis. It is also important to factor in the NPIemission sites that are located near the boundaries of the SA2hosting them. This is often referred to as the edge effectproblem in environmental justice research (Bolin et al2002,Chakraborty et al2011) and occurs when a polluting industryis so close to the edge or boundary of the host census unit thata neighboring (non-host) census unit is also exposed to the airpollution. To address this issue, all NPI sites and emissionslocated within 1 km of each SA2 boundary were included

    in the air pollution-related estimates at the SA2 level. Bufferdistances of 1 km (note: common practice is to use 1 mile inUS studies) have been used in a large number of environmentaljustice studies to estimate the areal extent of exposure toair pollutants (Baden and Coursey 2002, Bolin et al2002,Boone 2002, Chakraborty and Armstrong 1997, Glickman1994, Kearney and Kiros 2009, Maantay 2007, Mennis andJordan 2005, Mohai et al2009a, Neumann et al1998, Walkeret al2005).

    Our statistical analysis comprised of three phases. Wefirst examined the presence or absence of sites that reportair pollution emissions of the most toxic 90 chemicals (theidentified top ranked toxic pollutants in the NPI), askingwhether there are differences in the social disadvantage char-acteristics of populations in communities at the SA2 levelthat contain these sites, compared to those that did not. Thisbasic approach has been applied in several influential andwidely-cited environmental justice studies conducted at thenational level in the US (Anderton et al1994, Been 1995,Goldman and Fitton 1994, Hird 1993, UCC 1987, 2007).

    While the presence of a polluting site in a community hassome validity as an indicator of environmental pollution, itspresence may not be a reliable indicator of the quality andquantity of the pollution burden. Therefore, we proceededto carry out a more detailed analysis that focused on themagnitude of air pollution released in each SA2 based onthree indicators that have been used in previous environmentaljustice research: the total number of NPI sites, total volume ofair pollution emissions, and toxicity-weighted volume of airemissions.

    The second phase of analysis explored the relationshipbetween social disadvantage and the magnitude of air pollution

    3

  • Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 044010 J Chakraborty and D Green

    Table 2. Social disadvantage characteristics of communities with and without NPI sites.

    Variable National average SA2s without NPI sites SA2s with NPI sites Diff t-test: p-value

    Percent indigenous 3.86% 2.58% 4.37% 1.79%

  • Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 044010 J Chakraborty and D Green

    Table 3. Means of social disadvantage variables by magnitude of air pollution from NPI sites.

    Quartile means: SA2s with NPI sites (n = 1513) Trenda

    SA2s without NPI sites (n = 597) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th p-value

    Number of sites

    Percent indigenous 2.58% 3.80% 4.51% 4.08% 5.31% 0.001IRSD 1019.82 997.98 1004.42 992.21 969.11

  • Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 044010 J Chakraborty and D Green

    Figure 1. Communities falling at, or above, the 90th percentile for NPI air pollution. (a) Number of NPI sites. (b) Total emission volume.(c) Toxicity-weighted emission volume.

    the significance of the disparity, increases substantially whenemission volumes and toxicity are examined. Communitiesin the highest quartile for Indigenous percentages are 7.8(emission volume) and 6.7 (toxicity-weighted volume) timesmore likely, respectively, to belong to the most pollutedcategory compared to those in the lowest quartile for thisvariable.

    Our results reveal similar patterns for the SEIFA indexes,the next set of variables appearing in table 4. Since theenvironmental justice literature suggests that individuals ofhigher socio-economic status generally experience decreasedexposure to environmental pollution compared to those oflower socio-economic status, we expected relatively fewerSA2s in the most polluted category to correspond withhigher levels of socio-economic advantage. Therefore, wetreated the quartile with the highest score for each SEIFAindex as the reference quartile in this analysis. Communitieswith the lowest values of IRSD (greatest disadvantage) are 8.1times more likely to be among the most polluted communitiescompared to those with the highest values of IRSD (leastdisadvantage), based on the number of NPI sites. Similarresults and ratios are observed for the other SEIFA indexesfor this pollution indicator.

    When emission volumes and their toxicity are considered,a clear inverse relationship emerges between a communityssocio-economic advantage and its chances of belonging tothe most polluted category. Communities with the lowestvalues (first quartile) for both the IRSD and index of relativesocio-economic advantage and disadvantage (IRSAD) areabout six times more likely to belong to the most pollutedcategory than those with the highest values (fourth quartile)for these indexes. While this ratio is smallest for the indexof economic resources (IER) (

  • Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 044010 J Chakraborty and D Green

    Table 4. Percent of communities at or above the 90th percentile (top 10%) of NPI pollution and relative risk (RR) by social disadvantagecharacteristics.

    95% CINo. of SA2s in top 10% Percent of SA2s in top 10% RR Lower Upper p-value

    Number of sites

    Percent indigenousQ1 34 6.5% Q2 36 6.8% 1.06 0.67 1.66 0.811Q3 40 7.6% 1.17 0.76 1.83 0.475Q4 52 9.9% 1.53 1.00 2.32 0.045Index of relative socio-economic disadvantageQ1 57 10.8% 8.14 3.75 17.69

  • Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 044010 J Chakraborty and D Green

    Table 4. (Continued.)

    95% CINo. of SA2s in top 10% Percent of SA2s in top 10% RR Lower Upper p-value

    Q3 17 3.2% 2.83 1.12 7.12 0.027Q4 6 1.1%

    Toxicity-weighted emissions

    Percent indigenousQ1 11 2.1% Q2 18 3.4% 1.63 0.78 3.42 0.194Q3 48 9.1% 4.36 2.29 8.29

  • Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 044010 J Chakraborty and D Green

    quantitative environmental injustice at the national scale thatneeds to be addressed by policy-makers.

    This national level quantitative assessment of environ-mental justice has found significant and systemic inequities inthe social distribution of industrial air pollution inAustralia. Regardless of how air pollution was measured;facility presence, emission volume, or toxicity, our analysisindicated a consistent and disproportionate impact on Indige-nous and socially disadvantaged communities. These quanti-tative results demonstrate social inequities that are consistentwith those found in the US using the equivalent TRI pollutiondata. These findings support the ad hoc qualitative casestudies carried out around the country that detail finer-scaleair pollution-related injustices. Consequently, we believe thatthe issue of environmental justice requires consideration byAustralias environmental law and policy-makers. Our findingsdemonstrate that efforts to address or mitigate environmentalinjustice in Australia must include policies that seek to reducechronic air pollution from industrial activities.

    In the US, the environmental justice framework hasexpanded in recent years to include issues which are notdirectly related to the distribution of environmental bads.Research has progressed in this respect in the Indigenousspace especially (Figueroa 2006, 2011, Whyte 2013). Indige-nous cultural links between their communitys (and eachindividuals) connection to traditional lands and associatedstruggles for genuine recognition of ownership greatly informthis developing research field internationally, and to a morelimited degree, in Australia (Robertson et al2012).

    Finally, it is important to consider that this case studyfocused on assessing the current patterns of industrial air pollu-tion in Australia, and not the processes that led to the observedsocial disparities. The results cannot be used to determinewhether communities with NPI sites contained a dispropor-tionate number of Indigenous or socio-economically disadvan-taged populations at the time the location decisions were made,or whether subsequent events caused the inequities reported inthis analysis. More research is necessary to identify the specifichistorical trajectories of industrial and economic development,the role of local factors such as zoning, land-use restrictions,land values, and labor availability, as well as other political,social, and spatial processes that are potentially responsible forthe inequitable distribution of industrial air pollution sources.While these findings illustrate the distributional inequity, thereis more to fully understanding environmental injustice inAustralian Indigenous communities, as a consequence, muchmore analysis in this space needs to be conducted. Althoughour study does not explicate the processes leading to the currentdisparities, the results represent an important starting point formore detailed and longitudinal investigation of the causes andconsequences of injustice in specific regions and communitieswhere socially disadvantaged residents are disproportionatelyimpacted by industrial air emissions.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to thank the valuable contribution ofShawn Laffan for work on the NPI data set, Marissa Parry formanipulation of the SEIFA and ABS data, and Mark Taylorfor his insightful comments on an earlier draft of this letter.

    References

    ABS 2011 Census of Population and Housing (Canberra:Australian Bureau of Statistics)

    ABS 2013a Australian Statistical Geography Standard.Volume 1Main Structure and Greater Capital City StatisticalAreas (Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics)

    ABS 2013b Census of Population and Housing: Socio-EconomicIndexes for Areas, Australia (Canberra: Australian Bureau ofStatistics)

    AIHW 2011 The Health and Welfare of Australias Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Peoples (Canberra: Australian Bureau ofStatistics & the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare)

    Anderton D, Anderson J, Oakes J and Fraser M 1994 Environmentalequity: the demographics of dumping Demography 31 22948

    Apelberg B, Buckley T and White R 2005 Socioeconomic and racialdisparities in cancer risk from air toxics in Maryland Environ.Health Perspect. 113 6939

    Arcioni E and Mitchell G 2005 Environmental justice in Australia:when the RATS become IRATE Environ. Polit. 14 114

    Baden B and Coursey D 2002 The locality of waste within the cityof Chicago: a demographic, social, and economic analysisResour. Energy Econ. 24 5393

    Been V 1995 Analyzing evidence of environmental justice J. LandUse Environ. Law 11 136

    Bolin B, Nelson A, Hackett E, Pijawka D, Smith S, Sadalla E,Sicotte D, Matranga E and ODonnell M 2002 The ecology oftechnological risk in a sunbelt city Environ. Plann. A 34 31739

    Boone C 2002 An assessment and explanation of environmentalinequity in Baltimore Urban Geograp. 23 58195

    Brown P 1995 Race, class, and environmental health: a review andsystematization of the literature Environ. Res. 69 1530

    Bryant B and Mohai P (ed) 1992 Race and the Incidence ofEnvironmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse (Colorado:Westview Press)

    Bullard R 1990 Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and EnvironmentalQuality (Colorado: Westview Press)

    Byrne J and MacCallum D 2013 Bordering on neglect:environmental justice in Australian planning Aust. Planner50 16474

    Chakraborty J 2009 Automobiles, air toxics, and adverse healthrisks: environmental inequities in Tampa Bay, Florida Ann.Assoc. Am. Geogr. 99 64797

    Chakraborty J and Armstrong M 1997 Exploring the use of bufferanalysis for the identification of impacted areas in environmentalequity assessment Cartograp. Geograp. Info. Syst. 24 14557

    Chakraborty J, Maantay J and Brender J 2011 Disproportionateproximity to environmental health hazards: methods, models, andmeasurement Am. J. Public Health 101 S2736

    Collins T, Grineski S, Chakraborty J and McDonald Y 2011Understanding environmental health inequality throughcontextually-relevant and comparative intracategorical analysis:cancer risks from air toxics in El Paso, Texas Health Place17 33544

    Daniels G and Friedman S 1999 Spatial inequality and thedistribution of industrial toxic releases: evidence from the 1990TRI Soc. Sci. Quart. 80 24462

    EDO 2012 Environmental Justice Project: Final Report (Victoria:Environmental Defenders Office)

    EJS (no date) Environmental Justice Society. Understand YourLegal Rights Fact Sheets (available at: www.environmentaljustice.com.au)

    9

    http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061884http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2061884http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7609http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7609http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010500087590http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010500087590http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(01)00060-4http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(01)00060-4http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a3494http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a3494http://dx.doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.23.6.581http://dx.doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.23.6.581http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1995.1021http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1995.1021http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.776984http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.776984http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045600903066490http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045600903066490http://dx.doi.org/10.1559/152304097782476951http://dx.doi.org/10.1559/152304097782476951http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300109http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300109http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.11.011http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.11.011www.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.auwww.environmentaljustice.com.au

  • Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 044010 J Chakraborty and D Green

    Figueroa R 2006 Evaluating environmental justice claims ForgingEnvironmentalism. Justice, Livelihood, and ContestedEnvironments (New York: East Gate Book) chapter 7

    Figueroa R 2011 The Oxford handbook of indigenous peoples andcultural losses Climate Change and Society ed J Dryzek,R Norgaard and D Schlosberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press)chapter 16

    Glickman T 1994 Measuring environmental equity withgeographical information systems Renew. Res. J. 12 1721

    Goldman B and Fitton L 1994 Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited: AnUpdate of the 1987 Report on the Racial and SocioeconomicCharacteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites(Washington, DC: Center for Policy Alternatives)

    Hird J 1993 Environmental policy and equity: the case of superfundJ. Policy Anal. Manag. 1 32343

    Howes M 2001 Whats your poison? The Australian nationalpollutant inventory versus the US toxics release inventory Aust. J.Polit. Sci. 36 52952

    Kearney G and Kiros G 2009 A spatial evaluation of sociodemographics surrounding national priorities list sites in Floridausing a distance-based approach Int. J. Health Geogr. 8 33

    LABB (no date) Louisana bucket brigade Scientific AmericanCitizen Sciencewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigade (accessed on 30thOct. 2013)

    Linder S, Marko D and Sexton K 2008 Cumulative cancer risk fromair pollution in Houston: disparities in risk burden and socialdisadvantage Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 431222

    Lloyd-Smith M and Bell L 2003 Toxic disputes and the rise ofenvironmental justice in Australia Toxic Dispute Environ. Justice9 1422

    Maantay J 2007 Asthma and air pollution in the Bronx:methodological and data considerations in using GIS forenvironmental justice and health research Health Place 13 3256

    Mackay A, Taylor M, Munksgaard N, Hudson-Edwards K andBurn-Nunes L 2013 Identification of environmental lead sourcesand pathways in a mining and smelting town: Mount Isa,Australia Environ. Pollut. 180 30411

    McMichael A, Vimpani G, Robertson E, Baghurst A and Clark P1986 The Port Pirie cohort study: maternal blood lead andpregnancy outcome J. Epidemiol. Community Health 40 1825

    Mennis J and Jordan L 2005 The distribution of environmentalequity: exploring spatial non-stationary in multivariate models ofair toxic releases Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 95 24968

    Millner F 2011 Access to environmental justice Deakin Law Rev.16 189208

    Mohai P, Lantz P, Morenoff J, House J and Mero R 2009a Racialand socioeconomic disparities in residential proximity topolluting industrial facilities: evidence from the Americanschanging lives study Am. J. Public Health 99 64955

    Mohai P, Pellow D and Roberts J 2009b Environmental justiceAnnu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34 40530

    Munksgaard N, Taylor M and Mackay A 2010 Recognising andresponding to the obvious: the source of lead pollution at MountIsa and the likely health impacts Med. J. Aust. 193 1312

    National Research Council 1991 Environmental Epidemiology:Public Health and Hazardous Wastes (Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press)

    NEPC 1999 National Pollutant Inventory Technical Advisory PanelFinal Report (Canberra: National Environmental ProtectionCouncil)

    NEPC 2011 National Environment Protection Council AnnualReport (201112) (Canberra: National Environment ProtectionCouncil Service Corporation)

    Neumann C, Forman D and Rothlein J 1998 Hazard screening ofchemical releases and environmental equity analysis ofpopulations proximate to toxic release inventory facilities inOregon Environ. Health Perspect. 106 21726

    NPI 2013 National Pollution Inventory (Canberra: Government ofAustralia)

    Pastor M, Morello-Frosch R and Sadd J 2005 The air is alwayscleaner on the other side: race, space, and ambient air toxicsexposures in California J. Urban Aff. 27 12748

    Robertson H, Winer M and Murphy H 2012 Environmental Justicefor Indigenous People in the Cape York Peninsula: EnablingPotential and Navigating Constraints (Cairns: Cape YorkInstitute)

    Sandler R and Pezzullo P (ed) 2007 Environmental Justice andEnvironmentalism. The Social Justice Challenge to theEnvironmental Movement (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)

    Schlosberg D and Carruthers D 2010 Indigenous struggles,environmental justice, and community capabilities Glob. Environ.Polit. 10 1235

    Stephens C 2007 Environmental justice: a critical issue for allenvironmental scientists everywhere Environ. Res. Lett. 2 045001

    Taylor M, Camenzuli D, Kristensen L and Forbes M 2013Environmental lead exposure risks associated with childrensoutdoor playgrounds Environ. Pollut. 178 44754

    Taylor M and Schniering C 2010 The public minimization of therisks associated with environmental lead exposure and elevatedblood lead levels in children, Mount Isa, Queensland, AustraliaArch. Environ. Occup. Health 65 458

    TRI 2013 TRI listed chemicals. Available at:www2.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program (access 10Jan 2014)

    UCC 1987 Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A NationalReport on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics ofCommunities with Hazardous Waste Sites (New York: UnitedChurch of Christ)

    UCC 2007 Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: 19872007(Cleveland, Ohio: Justice and Witness Ministries, United Churchof Christ)

    Walker G, Mitchell G, Fairburn J and Smith G 2005 Industrialpollution and social deprivation: evidence and complexity inevaluating and responding to environmental inequality LocalEnviron. 10 36177

    Whyte K 2013 Justice forward: tribes, climate adaptation andresponsibility Clim. Change 120 51730

    10

    http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3325238http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3325238http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10361140120100703http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10361140120100703http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-8-33http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-8-33www.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadewww.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/project.cfm?id=louisiana-bucket-brigadehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es072042uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es072042uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.09.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.09.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.05.007http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.05.007http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.40.1.18http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.40.1.18http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2005.00459.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2005.00459.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.131383http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.131383http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.98106217http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.98106217http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00228.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00228.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00029http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00029http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045001http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.054http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.054http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19338240903338189http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19338240903338189www2.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-programhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830500160842http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830500160842http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0743-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0743-2

    Australia's first national level quantitative environmental justice assessment of industrial air pollutionIntroductionData and methodsAir pollution dataSocial disadvantage dataMethods

    ResultsCommunities with and without polluting industriesComparison of means by pollution quartileSocial disadvantage in the most polluted communities

    DiscussionAcknowledgmentsReferences

Recommended

View more >