Kulali Sharon, Gallion Hannah, Horton Christelene Jack, Kiper Keturah, Freeman Jennifer L, Wells Ellen M
Department of Public Health, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA.
School of Health Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA.
Environ Justice. 2025 Feb;18(1):47-56. doi: 10.1089/env.2023.0070. Epub 2025 Feb 5.
The location of hazardous sites is a known environmental justice issue, but impact of site classification (Superfund vs. brownfield) is less clear. The objective of this study is to determine whether demographic and health indicators are correlated with the prevalence of brownfield and/or Superfund sites in Indiana, USA.
This is a cross-sectional, ecologic study using publicly available data on hazardous waste sites, demographics, and self-reported health status. Complete data were available for 1252 census tracts, with 2251 brownfield and 2264 Superfund sites. Adjusted Poisson and linear regression models were used to determine associations between hazardous site frequency with demographic and health characteristics.
Approximately 24% of census tracts had >3 Superfund or brownfield sites. Higher brownfield frequency was significantly associated with a higher nonwhite population (adjusted β=0.004, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.002, 0.006); in contrast, more Superfund sites were significantly associated with a lower nonwhite population (adjβ=-0.006, 95% CI:-0.008, 0.004). Lower income was significantly associated with higher Superfund or brownfield site frequency. Results were consistent when limited to urban areas. Self-reported health measures were not associated with Superfund frequency. Census tracts with a higher number of brownfields were associated with a higher proportion of the population reporting poor general health (adjβ=0.057, 95% CI:0.010, 0.104) and poor mental health (adjβ=0.046, 95% CI:0.017, 0.075) compared to tracts without brownfield sites.
These results concur with existing evidence on disparities related to the location of hazardous site; they additionally suggest these disparities may extent to how hazardous sites are classified.
危险场所的位置是一个已知的环境正义问题,但场所分类(超级基金场地与棕地)的影响尚不清楚。本研究的目的是确定人口统计学和健康指标是否与美国印第安纳州棕地和/或超级基金场地的患病率相关。
这是一项横断面生态学研究,使用了关于危险废物场地、人口统计学和自我报告健康状况的公开可用数据。共有1252个人口普查区的完整数据,其中有2251个棕地和2264个超级基金场地。采用调整后的泊松回归和线性回归模型来确定危险场所频率与人口统计学和健康特征之间的关联。
约24%的人口普查区有超过3个超级基金场地或棕地。棕地频率较高与非白人人口较多显著相关(调整后的β=0.004,95%置信区间(CI):0.002,0.006);相反,超级基金场地较多与非白人人口较少显著相关(调整后的β=-0.006,95%CI:-0.008,-0.004)。低收入与超级基金场地或棕地频率较高显著相关。仅限于城市地区时结果一致。自我报告的健康指标与超级基金场地频率无关。与没有棕地场地的普查区相比,棕地数量较多的普查区中,报告总体健康状况差的人口比例较高(调整后的β=0.057,95%CI:0.010,0.104),报告心理健康状况差的人口比例也较高(调整后的β=0.046,95%CI:0.017,0.075)。
这些结果与关于危险场所位置差异存在的现有证据一致;此外,它们还表明这些差异可能延伸到危险场所的分类方式。