Ji-Young Son1, Rebecca L Muenich2, Danica Schaffer-Smith3, Marie Lynn Miranda4, Michelle L Bell5. 1. School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. Electronic address: jiyoung.son@yale.edu. 2. School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. 3. Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. 4. Department of Statistics, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA. 5. School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported environmental disparities regarding exposure to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Public health implications of environmental justice from the intensive livestock industry are of great concern in North Carolina (NC), USA, a state with a large number and extensive history of CAFOs. OBJECTIVES: We examined disparities by exposure to CAFOs using several environmental justice metrics and considering potentially vulnerable subpopulations. METHODS: We obtained data on permitted animal facilities from NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Using ZIP code level variables from the 2010 Census, we evaluated environmental disparities by eight environmental justice metrics (i.e., percentage of Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, or Hispanic; percentage living below the poverty level; median household income; percentage with education less than high school diploma; racial residential isolation (RI) for Non-Hispanic Black; and educational residential isolation (ERI) for population without college degree). We applied two approaches to assign CAFOs exposure for each ZIP code: (1) a count method based on the number of CAFOs within ZIP code; and (2) a buffer method based on the area-weighted number of CAFOs using a 15 km buffer. RESULTS: Spatial distributions of CAFOs exposure generally showed similar patterns between the two exposure methods. However, some ZIP codes had different estimated CAFOs exposure for the different approaches, with higher exposure when using the buffer method. Our findings indicate that CAFOs are located disproportionately in communities with higher percentage of minorities and in low-income communities. Distributions of environmental justice metrics generally showed similar patterns for both exposure methods, however starker disparities were observed using a buffer method. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings of the disproportionate location of CAFOs provide evidence of environmental disparities with respect to race and socioeconomic status in NC and have implications for future studies of environmental and health impacts of CAFOs.
BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported environmental disparities regarding exposure to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Public health implications of environmental justice from the intensive livestock industry are of great concern in North Carolina (NC), USA, a state with a large number and extensive history of CAFOs. OBJECTIVES: We examined disparities by exposure to CAFOs using several environmental justice metrics and considering potentially vulnerable subpopulations. METHODS: We obtained data on permitted animal facilities from NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Using ZIP code level variables from the 2010 Census, we evaluated environmental disparities by eight environmental justice metrics (i.e., percentage of Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, or Hispanic; percentage living below the poverty level; median household income; percentage with education less than high school diploma; racial residential isolation (RI) for Non-Hispanic Black; and educational residential isolation (ERI) for population without college degree). We applied two approaches to assign CAFOs exposure for each ZIP code: (1) a count method based on the number of CAFOs within ZIP code; and (2) a buffer method based on the area-weighted number of CAFOs using a 15 km buffer. RESULTS: Spatial distributions of CAFOs exposure generally showed similar patterns between the two exposure methods. However, some ZIP codes had different estimated CAFOs exposure for the different approaches, with higher exposure when using the buffer method. Our findings indicate that CAFOs are located disproportionately in communities with higher percentage of minorities and in low-income communities. Distributions of environmental justice metrics generally showed similar patterns for both exposure methods, however starker disparities were observed using a buffer method. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings of the disproportionate location of CAFOs provide evidence of environmental disparities with respect to race and socioeconomic status in NC and have implications for future studies of environmental and health impacts of CAFOs.
Authors: Floor Borlée; C Joris Yzermans; Bernadette Aalders; Jos Rooijackers; Esmeralda Krop; Catharina B M Maassen; François Schellevis; Bert Brunekreef; Dick Heederik; Lidwien A M Smit Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Lidwien A M Smit; Mariëtte Hooiveld; Femke van der Sman-de Beer; Annemieke W J Opstal-van Winden; Johan Beekhuizen; Inge M Wouters; C Joris Yzermans; Dick Heederik Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Arbor J L Quist; David A Holcomb; Mike Dolan Fliss; Paul L Delamater; David B Richardson; Lawrence S Engel Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 10.753
Authors: Nicole C Deziel; Joshua L Warren; Mercedes A Bravo; Franchesca Macalintal; Rachel T Kimbro; Michelle L Bell Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 6.371