A recent study from the University of Utah has uncovered significant disparities in the distribution of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality monitors, with a disproportionate number located in predominantly white neighborhoods. Published in JAMA Network Open on December 4, 2024, the research highlights how communities of color are consistently underrepresented in air quality data, particularly for pollutants like lead, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and carbon monoxide. This inequity could lead to misinformed decisions on pollution reduction and public health initiatives, leaving marginalized groups at greater risk.
The study, led by Brenna Kelly, a doctoral student at the University of Utah, analyzed the placement of EPA air quality monitors across the U.S. and compared it to neighborhood demographics at the census block level. The researchers found that while marginalized communities often face the highest exposure to air pollution, they are the least likely to have adequate monitoring. The largest disparities were observed for Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and Alaska Natives.
Air quality is highly localized and can vary dramatically even within small areas, such as from street to street. However, the current monitoring network fails to capture these variations in communities of color, leading to incomplete and potentially biased data. This data is crucial for making decisions about pollution control, urban planning, and public health interventions.
Simon Brewer, a coauthor of the study and associate professor of geography, noted that the consistent pattern of disparities across all pollutants suggests systemic issues in how monitors are distributed. “If there was a disparity for just one type of monitor, it could be accidental or poor design,” Brewer said. “But the fact that it’s a consistent pattern across all pollutants indicates a need to reevaluate the decision-making process.”
Brenna Kelly, the lead author, emphasized the broader implications of the findings: “It’s not just that we’re missing one pollutant type for one group—it’s that we understand less about everything for all these groups. That’s concerning. If I want to relate air pollution exposure to a disease, I need to measure it well. If I have a better understanding of air quality for one group of people, that’s going to produce biased results.”
The study underscores the urgent need for a more equitable distribution of air quality monitors to ensure that all communities, particularly marginalized ones, are accurately represented in air quality data. As society becomes increasingly reliant on big data and AI for decision-making, addressing biases in data collection is just as critical as tackling algorithmic biases. The findings call for a reevaluation of current monitoring practices to promote environmental justice and public health equity.
Add comment