Part I – Attach a PDF of your EJSCREEN Report along with a few sentences reflecting on the results.
Part II – There are three critical thinking questions in the week 13 slides, and two of them are numbered. Answer one of the two critical thinking questions with a few sentences. Provide a well-thought-out analytical response.
I have attached the EJSCREEN of my own neighborhood as an example.
As you’ll see, I blacked out the map as a way to protect my privacy. I encourage you also to blackout the map portion of your EJSCREEN Report.
For comparison, I included a second EJSCREEN Report for a census tract Davis Islands neighborhood in Tampa, which is about 4-4.5 miles south of where I live.
Looking at page 1 of the two reports – there is a stark difference in the EJ Indexes between the two areas. Namely, my neighborhood is ranking very high on almost all of the indexes whereas Davis Islands is not ranking very high at all.
(I had to take some time to wrap my mind around making sense of ‘percentiles’ and what they mean. There is a brief explanation on the bottom of the first page of your report.)
Looking at the report for my neighborhood – I can see that this area ranks in the 90-91 st percentile on four different indexes at the state level. This means that within the State of Florida, only 9-10% of areas fare worse in terms of this index than does my neighborhood. In comparison, Davis Islands isn’t ranking too high on the indexes. This means that in comparison to other areas (at the state, regional, and national levels), Davis Islands isn’t generally a concerning context for environmental justice issues.
It is important to consider how this index is calculated. The EJ Index is a combination of environmental data and sociodemographic data.
Since environmental justice is very concerned with race and socioeconomics – and vulnerable communities generally – the index is focusing on the proportion of people in those areas who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and belong to minority communities. (This index is also considering age, language, and education.)
Therefore, an area with a large population of people who are poor and/or belong to communities of color and are exposed to environmental pollutants, toxins, and/or hazards will score high on the EJ index.
If you look at page 3 of the reports, you’ll see that this data is disaggregated. So, you see how the area scores on the Environmental Indexes and also the Sociodemographic Index.
My neighborhood has a EJ demographic index of 68%.
This is because the neighborhood is mostly comprised of individuals in ‘minority’ racial/ethnic groups (76%) and people who are ‘low-income’ (61%). I can also see that almost 1/4 of people do not have a full high school education.
Davis Islands has a EJ demographic index of 16%.
This is because it is mostly comprised of individuals who are not in ‘minority’ racial/ethnic groups (79%) and only 10% of its population are ‘low-income’.
The sociodemographic data in combination with the environmental data are combined to determine the EJ Indexes.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I am not surprised at the outcome of the report, but I am definitely feeling concerned for the health of residents who have lived in this community for a very long time.
My neighborhood has a long history in the city – it is an ‘inner-city’ suburb that grew out of the Ybor City suburban fringes. The housing stock is very old and there is not much investment in the area. This means that the risk of lead paint as a toxin in the neighborhood is much greater.
The high air pollution indexes also make sense. The neighborhood was cut in half by I-275 during the period of urban renewal in the 60s and 70s. I-275 is visible from my bedroom window and it is an ever-present white-noise in the house…lulls me to sleep at night (!!). The fact that the highway runs through the neighborhood means that there will be elevated air pollutants due to traffic.
Along the major corridors (Nebraska, Florida, and MLK Jr.) are gas stations, car-washes, laundromats, car repair shops, and light industry such as welding. These land-use activities are also polluting and release toxins into the environment. This likely accounts for ‘superfund, RMP, and hazardous waste’ indexes. The label for sites that are contaminated, or could possibly be contaminated, with hazardous toxins and pollutants are ‘brownfield sites’.
Many of these land-uses must be registered with the government so that they can be monitored and regulated. More so, this is very important for future land use. If there is turnover in ownership of the property, those new owners must be aware of pollution and toxins on the site. (It is irresponsible …and unethical… to build housing, daycares, schools, restaurants, or community gardens, etc. on toxic and polluted land!). Before the land can be redeveloped into, for example, housing – it must be ‘cleaned’ by removing ALL of the toxic and polluted soil. This is a wildly expensive step and a major hindrance for developers because it eats into their profit margins. How does this further reproduce disinvestment in certain areas…?
0 comments