A GIS–Environmental Justice Analysis of Particulate Air Pollution in Hamilton, Canada

Abstract

The authors address two research questions: (1) Are populations with lower socioeconomic status, compared with people of higher socioeconomic status, more likely to be exposed to higher levels of particulate air pollution in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada? (2) How sensitive is the association between levels of particulate air pollution and socioeconomic status to specification of exposure estimates or statistical models? Total suspended particulate (TSP) data from the twenty-three monitoring stations in Hamilton (1985–94) were interpolated with a universal kriging procedure to develop an estimate of likely pollution values across the city based on annual geometric means and extreme events. Comparing the highest with the lowest exposure zones, the interpolated surfaces showed more than a twofold increase in TSP concentrations and more than a twentyfold difference in the probability of exposure to extreme events. Exposure estimates were related to socioeconomic and demographic data from census tract areas by using ordinary least squares and simultaneous autoregressive (SAR) models. Control for spatial autocorrelation in the SAR models allowed for tests of how robust specific socioeconomic variables were for predicting pollution exposure. Dwelling values were significantly and negatively associated with pollution exposure, a result robust to the method of statistical analysis. Low income and unemployment were also significant predictors of exposure, although results varied depending on the method of analysis. Relatively minor changes in the statistical models altered the significant variables. This result emphasizes the value of geographical information systems (GIS) and spatial statistical techniques in modelling exposure. The result also shows the importance of taking spatial autocorrelation into account in future justice – health studies.

The application of three methods to measure the statistical association between different social groups and the concentration of air pollutants in Montreal: A case of environmental equity

“…NO2 is the pollutant most often used to measure pollution concentrations generated by road transportation, since it has high co-locational association with other types of pollutants such as PM and CO (Beckerman et al, 2008;Wheeler et al, 2008). Once the pollution measurements are collected at n points across a study area, several different kinds of models can be used to generate a surface map, including geostatistical interpolation methods such as kriging (Buzzelli and Jerrett, 2004;Jerrett et al, 2001), or landuse regression (Crouse et al, 2009a;Jerrett et al, 2007). The advantage of this spatial modelling, as Kingham and Dorset (2011) have noted, is that it allows pollutants to be measured at a much finer scale, and at relatively low cost.…”

Forecasting environmental equity: Air quality responses to road user charging in Leeds, UK

“…The regression is not used to infer causality between variables, but is used to test for association between them, with a steeper slope coefficient indicative of greater sensitivity of Townsend scores to NO 2 levels. The use of regression models where causality is not inferred is discussed by Cook and Weisberg (1999), and has previously been used in an air quality-equity context by Jerrett et al, (2001). Secondly, difference tests are conducted which compare annual mean NO 2 concentration in the upper and lower quartiles of the deprivation index.…”

Local Air Quality Management policy and practice in the UK: The case for greater Public Health integration and engagement

“…This means it is difficult to work to the principle that the largest public health benefits will result not from simply reducing air pollution, but by doing so in areas where health needs are greatest (Jerrett et al, 2001). Indeed, acting to manage local air pollution problems and protect health on a limited understanding of scope and relationships, or worse, ignoring them altogether, may actually compound problems through poorly-informed, ill-conceived decisions and actions (Bowen, 2002).…”

“…Consequent local-level health impacts vary considerably, not only influenced by differential air pollution exposures but also by individual and population-level susceptibilities (Lipfert, 2004). The triple jeopardy of air pollution, impaired health and social deprivation can compound problems by creating disproportionate and amplified disease burdens between and within regions (Goodman et al, 2011;Jerrett et al, 2001).…”