BACKGROUND: The scientific evidence on the health effects of waste-related exposure is not conclusive. Differential exposure to waste by socio-economic status (SES) is often documented, but the interplay between environmental and social factors, crucial for policy making, is not well known. This review aims at investigating the role of health inequalities and inequities in waste management. METHODS: Grey and peer-reviewed literature, published after 1983, was reviewed from Europe and the USA. RESULTS: Available data provide consistent indications that waste facilities are often disproportionally more located in areas with more deprived residents, or from ethnical minorities. This applies to waste incinerators, landfills, hazardous waste sites, legal and illegal. In studies considering health effects (mainly from Europe), risks are estimated with standardization for SES. Such standardization almost always decreases risk estimates for several cancers and reproductive outcomes. However, effect modification is not investigated in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: The patterns of association between waste-related environmental pressures and SES suggest that some of the observed inequalities in exposure and health represent a case of environmental injustice as they are the result of social processes and may be prevented, at least partly. Disentangling the possible health effects remains difficult, due to limitations in the methodology. It seems important to investigate if disadvantaged people are more vulnerable, i.e. risks differ in different social groups living in the same area. Notwithstanding these open questions, public health officers and decision makers should identify waste management policies to minimize their potential health impacts and their unequal distribution.
BACKGROUND: The scientific evidence on the health effects of waste-related exposure is not conclusive. Differential exposure to waste by socio-economic status (SES) is often documented, but the interplay between environmental and social factors, crucial for policy making, is not well known. This review aims at investigating the role of health inequalities and inequities in waste management. METHODS: Grey and peer-reviewed literature, published after 1983, was reviewed from Europe and the USA. RESULTS: Available data provide consistent indications that waste facilities are often disproportionally more located in areas with more deprived residents, or from ethnical minorities. This applies to waste incinerators, landfills, hazardous waste sites, legal and illegal. In studies considering health effects (mainly from Europe), risks are estimated with standardization for SES. Such standardization almost always decreases risk estimates for several cancers and reproductive outcomes. However, effect modification is not investigated in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: The patterns of association between waste-related environmental pressures and SES suggest that some of the observed inequalities in exposure and health represent a case of environmental injustice as they are the result of social processes and may be prevented, at least partly. Disentangling the possible health effects remains difficult, due to limitations in the methodology. It seems important to investigate if disadvantaged people are more vulnerable, i.e. risks differ in different social groups living in the same area. Notwithstanding these open questions, public health officers and decision makers should identify waste management policies to minimize their potential health impacts and their unequal distribution.
Authors: Sacoby M Wilson; Herb Fraser-Rahim; Edith Williams; Hongmei Zhang; LaShanta Rice; Erik Svendsen; Winston Abara Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Erin N Haynes; Timothy J Hilbert; Rusty Roberts; John Quirolgico; Rachael Shepler; Gerry Beckner; Jennifer Veevers; Jeff Burkle; Roman Jandarov Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2019
Authors: Monica D Ramirez-Andreotta; Mark L Brusseau; Janick F Artiola; Raina M Maier; A Jay Gandolfi Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Donald Lucas; Sara M Petty; Olya Keen; Bob Luedeka; Martin Schlummer; Roland Weber; Ramin Yazdani; Brian Riise; James Rhodes; Dave Nightingale; Miriam L Diamond; John Vijgen; Avery Lindeman; Arlene Blum; Catherine P Koshland Journal: Environ Eng Sci Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 1.907
Authors: Christopher D Heaney; Steve Wing; Robert L Campbell; David Caldwell; Barbara Hopkins; David Richardson; Karin Yeatts Journal: Environ Res Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 6.498