Air pollution health disparities between wealthy and poor urban neighborhoods

The Problem of Pollution and Poor Neighborhoods: How Air Pollution Affects People Introduction
It is well-documented that air pollutants have a negative effect on people’s health. While the adverse effects can potentially plague the entire body, it is generally the lungs that are punished most. Emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma are all directly correlated with long-term exposure to the pollutant nitrogen dioxide, or “NO2“. NO2 is a pollutant released from fuel combustion, meaning nearly all automobiles, busses, power plants, and off-road equipment are constantly pumping the gas into the air we breathe. It is also well-documented that poorer areas in urban environments are nearer to busy freeways, highly trafficked streets, and large factories and plants that produce massive amounts of air pollutants. People living in poorer neighborhoods are more consistently exposed to air pollution and are therefore more likely to develop health problems. The Problem of the Built Environment Part of the problem of the built environment is that these environments are not always built with all the needs of human beings in mind. Human beings need green space, safe parks and playgrounds where they can get outdoor exercise, and clean air to breathe. But if one looks at an urban area like downtown Louisville, one finds abandoned buildings close together, little green space, and lots of air pollution from the incessant stream of traffic on the city’s roads and highways. The built environment of poor neighborhoods in urban areas, in other words, was created to facilitate business and transportation—commerce—rather than to facilitate that healthy lifestyle that human beings need to survive.
Air pollution, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) under the guidance of the World Health Organization (WHO) is a leading “cancer-causing agent” in the industrialized world (Simon). Wealthy communities like Burbank, California, do not have the same problem: they are designed not so much for profit as they are for peace and comfort. There is plenty of fresh air and green space and the neighborhoods are safe. The people there can also afford to buy electric vehicles (EVs), which produce no air pollution because they have no exhaust; they run on battery power. Thus, the air is easier to breathe and the cancer causing agents identified by the WHO are less likely to be found in the air of such neighborhoods.
However, where the parts for these EVs are made—or any car for that matter—production areas like Detroit, Michigan, for instance—are polluted and poor. The environments are completely the opposite of the plush neighborhoods like Burbank. Detroit is a town built for business and the built environment reflects this reality: polluted air and streets, factories producing cars, and so on: it all contributes to a polluted environment that is toxic for the poor, working class people who spend their lives slaving away in these environments. Setting aside the exhaust of the automobile that pollutes the streets of cities like Detroit (as opposed to the streets of places like Burbank where the people tend to drive EVs), one can point to the parts that are manufactured in the urban areas and how the production of these parts contribute to the spoliation of the environment. Even the parts of the automobile, for example, such as the plastic exterior and interior parts rely on a great deal of petroleum, which is not just used for gas but is always used in the manufacturing of plastics, moldings, etc. Today’s cars have on average about 260 lbs of plastic on them, which equates to about 130 gallons of oil (Schirber). Thus, even those people who think they are saving the environment in Burbank by driving EVs are still making it worse for others in other parts of the world where the parts for their EVs are manufactured. Big oil companies are still needed to produce the EVs that these people love to drive—and what it does not mean is that driving an EV is really any better for the environment than driving an internal combustion engine vehicle—at least for now. What Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, and many Tesla fans argue is that in the future, the EV will have zero carbon footprint and there will be more reliance on renewable energy sources for electricity and less dependency on petroleum for car parts (Berndt). Yet, that would mean replacing the energy infrastructure of the US, which could cost trillions of dollars and is seen by many as unrealistic (Natter).
Another problem faced in such urban areas where spatial design has focused on maximizing space for the purposes of business is that these areas’ planners have not taken into consideration the health needs of the population or those of the health care providers who have to have a safe facility in which they can operate in order to provide access to care for the people in these environments. Access to care is considered a significant issue in the US because the market is mixed. The Affordable Care Act was meant to improve supply and get 20 million more people signed up for government subsidized plans or for private insurance. Access to care remains an issue, however, because of the fact that in many states Advanced Practice Registered Nurses are still obliged to practice under the supervision of doctors, even though they have been trained and certified to be able to practice independently. This creates a situation in which supply is constrained by outdated laws (IOM; O’Brien). In the UK, France and Japan, supply is available but because of the single-payer system that ensures care for everyone, delays are inevitable and obtaining care through the public system can cause long waits (Carroll, Frakt). In India, supply is found in urban areas but is greatly reduced in rural regions. In the US, the problem is that poor neighborhoods are not made to attract many in the services or health services industry because there is not any money to be made. These areas are designed to be urban ghettoes for the working class. The big health facilities are found in larger suburbs, where the upper middle class with health insurance and who are in the habit of getting health check-ups and treatments can be found. Thus it is not just a matter of how the design of the urban area is conceived but also a matter of how the economics of the area are to be considered. Wealthy urban areas can be created and access to care can be found in them—like in New York—but in urban ghettoes the conception has failed to consider factors like the economic incentive of businesses to operated in these areas, which only makes matters worse, and prevents people in poor neighborhoods from having the access to care they require. The problem of the built environment is thus one that cannot be examined in isolation from other disciplines, such as economics and business and politics, for they are all integrated in society. The Health Impacts If the COVID 19 pandemic has shown anything it is what can happen when fewer people in these neighborhoods are out driving on the streets or when fewer factories are introducing pollution into the air: the pollution disappears and the air becomes cleaner (Ellis-Petersen). How these same communities fare once life returns to normal, however, is another story altogether. The factories are likely to return to full production, the streets are likely to be overwhelmed with traffic once more, and the air pollution is likely to increase back to toxic levels.
As Kravitz-Wirtz points out, these levels of pollution increase health risks such as asthma. Indeed, the research shows that early-life exposures to NO2, a marker of traffic-related pollution, and fine particulate matter PM2.5, “a mixture of industrial and other pollutants, are positively associated with subsequent childhood asthma diagnosis” (Kravitz-Wirtz 1114). These findings have been borne out by multiple other studies around the nation—particularly in regions where pollution is high, like the San Fernando Valley region. Stillbirths, congenital heart defects, maternal diabetes and preterm births have all been associated with air pollution in this region (Padula et al.). And as Connolly points out, a high rate of mortality has also been linked with air pollution in the Valley. It is believed and argued by Connolly that the reduction of PM2.5 could lead to a reduction in the loss of life in the poorer neighborhoods of the Valley. The problem is that it is difficult for these neighborhoods to get the support they need because they do not contribute much to the overall economy. The cities that get the most investment and that are planned and spatially designed to be most supportive of health are the ones where wealth is concentrated. Poor neighborhoods are essentially left to flounder and to dither on their own in whatever makeshift, haphazard way they come into existence. Planning and foresight are not considerable factors in their development.
The Hewlett Foundation has shown that among people who are 30+ in age, there are approximately 460 premature deaths currently, and more than 20,000 asthma attacks that people living in the poor neighborhoods of the San Fernando Valley experience. Additionally, the children in these neighborhoods experience over 3,000 cases of bronchitis and more than 300 of them are new cases every year; additionally, there are over 250 hospital admissions and a total of 17,000 days that see children in these poor neighborhoods suffering from a respiratory problem caused by air pollution in the community (Hewlett Foundation). Environmental Inequality What all of these statistics point to is a case of environmental inequality that leads directly to poorer health among the poor populations of poor neighborhoods where factories and residences pile upon one another and the air is no different from that coming directly out the tail pipe of a fossil fuel burning vehicle. Anyone who has ever spent time in a heavily polluted city and time in the mountains can tell the difference between clean air and toxic air.
It is the poor neighborhoods that have the higher health burden in the US (Bell, Ebisu). Poorer populations, such as blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be impacted by environmental inequality as well, since they are the ones carrying the health burden of these cities and regions. Environmental injustice occurs in this manner because the infrastructure has not been created to support their health needs, and they are the marginalized classes and populations whose contribution to society is deemed insignificant by the wealth creators and therefore not a primary concern. Essentially, it is the argument of Angela Davis, who laments the destruction of the urban communities of the black population because it is a population viewed inhumanely by the powers that be in the American establishment.
Healthy neighborhoods are more than just about communities with clean air: they are neighborhoods that have places for adults and children to walk outdoors, jog, ride bikes, and play in fields and parks. They have green space that helps promote psychological health, and they have places where people can exercise. Poor neighborhoods tend to lack this kind of spatial design because the money to support the infrastructure is simply not there. Taxes from businesses and residences go to support the development of parks and sidewalks, bike lanes, and so on. When the tax revenue does not provide this financial support, the neighborhoods do not reap the benefits, and the poor neighborhoods tend to be the communities that have the least income coming in and thus the least tax revenue collected by the city.
As Marshall et al. show, wealthier communities have more walkability and lower air pollution than poorer communities. This is what leads to environmental inequality and what perpetuates the cycle of low-income communities continuing to worsen while upper class communities continue to improve. The tax revenue is always going to be higher in the wealthier communities and the access to green spaces, to health care, and to exercise in the outdoors is always going to be greater in the wealthier communities than in the poorer communities. Creating Equitability in the Environment Creating equitability in the environment begins with the need to establish a sense of shared spaces within the wider culture. If the wider culture of a country is not open to the idea of sharing spaces, equitability cannot be achieved: the resources will remain in the hands of the few while the problems mount for the many. Affordability is a problem across the board for many people, whether in terms of housing, education, health care or food. The environment, however, is impacted by everyone—though it tends to be the poor neighborhoods who are most impacted by the pollution that all people contribute, too—even the upper classes in Burbank, California.
To create more equitability in the environment, cultural awareness is required with respect to how to improve sustainability. Sustainable environments are those that do not waste resources and that reduce their carbon footprint. Community gardens for instance are a way for people to create more sustainable environments. These can not only have the effect of getting people outdoors and in contact with nature but also have the effect of getting people to appreciate what is good for nature, good for their gardens, good for the soil, for their plants, and for themselves and taking measures to ensure that good things go into the earth and into the air. By engaging with nature, people begin to respect nature and to understand how it works and what they can do to keep it clean. Having access to community gardens is a simple, inexpensive first step in increasing equitability in the environment (Glover, Parry, Shinew). It promotes the idea of shared spaces and helps to change the culture of the country, where there is so much divide between the haves and the have-nots.
Simple steps like these can help to reduce the health burden that people in poor neighborhoods experience because simple steps lead to larger steps. It is much more difficult to get a country to change its culture through big leaps than it is through small steps taken over time. Small steps, such as the promotion of community gardens in poor communities, help to raise awareness about the importance of having a clean environment. As that awareness is raised, stakeholders begin to go the next step and to build on the small victories and successes that come from the initial introduction of green ideas.
Future progress can be made by expanding access to green spaces and diverting funds away from certain projects to ensure that safe streets and sidewalks for walking and riding can be had and that parks and playgrounds can be installed on more blocks within the city. The more that life is respected in the community, the more likely the environment is to flourish. The more the environment flourishes, the more likely investment is to come to the city and neighborhood. The more that investment comes to the neighborhood, the more likely access to health care is to arrive. One thing leads to another and the chain of events needed to help change the spatial dimensions of a poor community can all be traced back to a simple nugget, a simple first step in which one allows a community to get back in touch with nature through something as small as having a community garden. Starting in this manner, a poor neighborhood can over time become a healthy and wealthy neighborhood.
Conclusion
Poor neighborhoods are more susceptible to pollution and toxins in the air than wealthy neighborhoods where the built environment is more open, greener, and full of wealthier people who take time to care for their environment. People who drive Teslas live in nice communities, with parks and playgrounds and safe streets for walking and getting outdoor exercise by bike riding. People who have to take the bus to get to work in their factory job tend to live in poor communities, where there is less attention given to the environment. The air is filled with PM and NO2, which can cause asthma, cancer, bronchitis and a number of other health and respiratory problems. Air pollution in poor neighborhoods hurts the health of these people, and their limited access to health care only compounds the problem. To address it fairly, the culture of the country has to change and that can happen simply by promoting something as small as bringing community gardens to poor neighborhoods. This can be seen as a small first step in creating equitability in the environment and creating a greener, healthier space for people to live in.

Works Cited Bell, Michelle, and Keita Ebisu. “Environmental Inequality in Exposures to Airborne Particulate Matter Components in the United States.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 120, no. 12, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Dec. 2012, pp. 1699–704, doi:10.1289/ehp.1205201. Berndt, Chad. “A Tesla is Greener Than You Think and Getting Greener.” Teslarati, 4 July 2017, https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-greener-think-getting-greener-look-manufacturing/ Carroll, A. and A. Frakt, A. “Best health care system. New York Times, 18 Sept 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/18/upshot/best-health-care-system-country-bracket.html Connolly, R. E. Estimating Mortality Impacts From Vehicle Emission Reduction Efforts: the Tune In and Tune Up Program in the San Joaquin Valley (Doctoral dissertation, UCLA), 2018. Davis, Angela. The Meaning of Freedom. San Francisco, CA: City Light Books, 2012. Ellis-Petersen, Hannah. “It’s Positively Alpine!” The Guardian, 11 Apr 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/11/positively-alpine-disbelief-air-pollution-falls-lockdown-coronavirus Glover, Troy D., Diana C. Parry, and Kimberly J. Shinew. "Building relationships, accessing resources: Mobilizing social capital in community garden contexts." Journal of Leisure Research 37.4 (2005): 450-474. Hewlett Foundation. “New Study Finds Central Valley Air Pollution Costs Regional Economy $3 Billion Annually.” Hewlett Foundation, 2006. https://hewlett.org/newsroom/new-study-finds-central-valley-air-pollution-costs-regional-economy-3-billion-annually/ IOM. “The future of nursing.” NACNS, 2013. http://nacns.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/5-IOM-Report.pdf Kravitz-Wirtz, Nicole, et al. “Early-Life Air Pollution Exposure, Neighborhood Poverty, and Childhood Asthma in the United States, 1990?2014.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 15, no. 6, May 2018, doi:10.3390/ijerph15061114. Marshall, Julian, et al. “Healthy Neighborhoods: Walkability and Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 117, no. 11, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Nov. 2009, pp. 1752–59, doi:10.1289/ehp.0900595. Natter, Ari. “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Could Cost $93 Trillion, Group Says.” Bloomberg, 25 February 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/group-sees-ocasio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-costing-93-trillion O’Brien, J. “How nurse practitioners obtained provider status: Lessons for pharmacists.” American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 60.22 (2003): 2301-2307. Padula, Amy M., et al. "Prenatal exposure to air pollution, maternal diabetes and preterm birth." Environmental research 170 (2019): 160-167. Schirber, Michael. “Chemistry of Cars.” LiveScience, 6 May 2009, https://www.livescience.com/5449-chemistry-life-plastic-cars.html Simon, S. “World Health Organization: Outdoor Air Pollution Causes Cancer,” 2013. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/world-health-organization-outdoor-air-pollution-causes-cancer