Buckley Laura, Arter Calvin A, Willis Mary D, Geddes Jeffrey A, Rick Christopher, Kinney Patrick L, Arunachalam Saravanan, Buonocore Jonathan J, Levy Jonathan I
Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Boston University, 715 Albany Street, Boston, MA, 02218, USA.
Institute for the Environment, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Environ Res. 2024 Dec 1;262(Pt 1):119791. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.119791. Epub 2024 Aug 14.
Many climate mitigation policies to reduce transportation emissions have public health benefits related to ambient air pollution. However, few health analyses consider the equity implications of alternative policies. Equity can be conceptualized in many different ways that may be relevant to communities, decision-makers, and other stakeholders.
To evaluate alternative transportation emissions reduction scenarios across the northeastern United States considering population exposure reductions and multiple equity constructs.
We developed four quantitative indicators reflecting equity constructs that aligned with stakeholder perspectives, including racial/ethnic exposure inequities, proportion of benefits in environmental justice communities, distribution of benefits among participating states, and rural/urban share of benefits. We analyzed numerous transportation emissions reduction scenarios for directly emitted fine particulate matter (primary PM) covering 12 Northeast states and the District of Columbia. We used the Community Multiscale Air Quality model with the decoupled direct method to estimate the reduction in population-weighted primary PM exposure and the impact on equity for each scenario.
Scenarios that yielded greater reductions in population-weighted primary PM exposure generally emphasized emissions reductions in urban areas or states with large urban centers, with a more than threefold difference in benefits across scenarios. The higher exposure-benefit scenarios typically also had greater reductions in racial/ethnic exposure inequities but led to higher between-state or rural/urban inequality. Scenarios that targeted uniform percentage emission reductions from light or heavy-duty trucks best addressed rural/urban inequalities but led to the smallest reductions in racial/ethnic inequity.
There are intrinsic tradeoffs among equity constructs, where focusing resources on distributing benefits across states or between urban and rural populations could come at the expense of less reduction in racial/ethnic exposure inequities or in environmental justice communities. Future health benefits analyses should incorporate multiple equity indicators that reflect different stakeholder perspectives and articulate the underlying constructs and tradeoffs.
许多旨在减少交通排放的气候缓解政策都具有与环境空气污染相关的公共卫生效益。然而，很少有健康分析考虑替代政策对公平性的影响。公平性可以通过许多不同方式来概念化，这些方式可能与社区、决策者和其他利益相关者相关。
考虑人口暴露减少情况和多种公平性构建因素，评估美国东北部不同的交通排放减少情景。
我们制定了四个反映与利益相关者观点一致的公平性构建因素的定量指标，包括种族/族裔暴露不平等、环境正义社区的效益比例、参与州之间的效益分配以及农村/城市效益份额。我们分析了涵盖美国东北部12个州和哥伦比亚特区的直接排放细颗粒物（一次颗粒物）的众多交通排放减少情景。我们使用具有解耦直接法 的社区多尺度空气质量模型来估计每种情景下人口加权一次颗粒物暴露的减少量以及对公平性的影响。
在人口加权一次颗粒物暴露减少幅度更大的情景中，通常强调在城市地区或有大型城市中心的州减少排放，不同情景之间的效益差异超过三倍。较高暴露 - 效益情景通常在种族/族裔暴露不平等方面也有更大幅度的减少，但导致州际或农村/城市不平等加剧。针对轻型或重型卡车统一百分比减排的情景最能解决农村/城市不平等问题，但导致种族/族裔不平等减少幅度最小。
公平性构建因素之间存在内在权衡，将资源集中于在各州之间或城乡人口之间分配效益可能会以减少种族/族裔暴露不平等或环境正义社区的减排量为代价。未来的健康效益分析应纳入多个反映不同利益相关者观点的公平性指标，并阐明潜在的构建因素和权衡。
