Search

Wildfires have become more frequent and intense due to climate change and outdoor wildfire fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations differ from relatively smoothly varying total PM2.5. Thus, we introduced a conceptual model for computing long-term wildfire PM2.5 and assessed disproportionate exposures among marginalized communities. We used monitoring data and statistical techniques to characterize annual wildfire PM2.5 exposure based on intermittent and extreme daily wildfire PM2.5 concentrations in California census tracts (2006 to 2020). Metrics included: 1) weeks with wildfire PM2.5 > 5 µg/m3; 2) days with non-zero wildfire PM2.5; 3) mean wildfire PM2.5 during peak exposure week; 4) smoke waves (= 2 consecutive days with > 15 µg/m3 wildfire PM2.5); and 5) mean annual wildfire PM2.5 concentration. We classified tracts by their racial/ethnic composition and CalEnviroScreen (CES) score, an environmental and social vulnerability composite measure. We examined associations of CES and racial/ethnic composition with the wildfire PM2.5 metrics using mixed-effects models. Averaged 2006 to 2020, we detected little difference in exposure by CES score or racial/ethnic composition, except for non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native populations, where a 1-SD increase was associated with higher exposure for 4/5 metrics. CES or racial/ethnic × year interaction term models revealed exposure disparities in some years. Compared to their California-wide representation, the exposed populations of non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native (1.68×, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.81), white (1.13×, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.32), and multiracial (1.06×, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.23) people were over-represented from 2006 to 2020. In conclusion, during our study period in California, we detected disproportionate long-term wildfire PM2.5 exposure for several racial/ethnic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, marginalized communities are disproportionately facing the worsening effects of environmental hazards, including air pollution, water pollution, and climate change. Language isolation and accessibility has been understudied as a determinant of health. Spanish, despite being the second-most common language in the United States with some 41.8 million speakers, has been neglected among environmental health scientists. Building capacity in high-quality Spanish-language science communication, both for scientific and nonscientific audiences, can yield improvements in health disparities research, public health literacy, international collaborations, and diversity and inclusion efforts. OBJECTIVES: In this article, we discuss the context of language diversity in environmental health sciences and offer recommendations for improving science communication in Spanish. DISCUSSION: English is currently the predominant language for scientific discourse, but Spanish and other non-English languages are routinely used by many environmental health science students and professionals, as well as much of the public. To more effectively conduct and communicate environmental health work in Spanish, we suggest that researchers and scientific institutions a) foster structural changes, b) train emerging scholars and support established researchers, c) tap into community ways of knowing, and d) leverage emerging technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The western United States is home to most of the nation's oil and gas production and, increasingly, wildfires. We examined historical threats of wildfires for oil and gas wells, the extent to which wildfires are projected to threaten wells as climate change progresses, and exposure of human populations to these wells. From 1984-2019, we found that cumulatively 102,882 wells were located in wildfire burn areas, and 348,853 people were exposed (resided ≤ 1 km). During this period, we observed a five-fold increase in the number of wells in wildfire burn areas and a doubling of the population within 1 km of these wells. These trends are projected to increase by late century, likely threatening human health. Approximately 2.9 million people reside within 1 km of wells in areas with high wildfire risk, and Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Native American people have disproportionately high exposure to wildfire-threatened wells., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests. The authors declare no competing interests.

Purpose of Review: The volume of public health environmental justice (EJ) research produced by academic institutions increased through 2022. However, the methods used for evaluating EJ in exposure science and epidemiologic studies have not been catalogued. Here, we completed a scoping review of EJ studies published in 19 environmental science and epidemiologic journals from 2018 to 2021 to summarize research types, frameworks, and methods., Recent Findings: We identified 402 articles that included populations with health disparities as a part of EJ research question and met other inclusion criteria. Most studies (60%) evaluated EJ questions related to socioeconomic status (SES) or race/ethnicity. EJ studies took place in 69 countries, led by the US (n = 246 [61%]). Only 50% of studies explicitly described a theoretical EJ framework in the background, methods, or discussion and just 10% explicitly stated a framework in all three sections. Among exposure studies, the most common area-level exposure was air pollution (40%), whereas chemicals predominated personal exposure studies (35%). Overall, the most common method used for exposure-only EJ analyses was main effect regression modeling (50%); for epidemiologic studies the most common method was effect modification (58%), where an analysis evaluated a health disparity variable as an effect modifier. Based on the results of this scoping review, current methods in public health EJ studies could be bolstered by integrating expertise from other fields (e.g., sociology), conducting community-based participatory research and intervention studies, and using more rigorous, theory-based, and solution-oriented statistical research methods., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Increasingly, marginalized communities are disproportionately facing the worsening effects of environmental hazards, including air pollution, water pollution, and climate change. Language isolation and accessibility has been understudied as a determinant of health. Spanish, despite being the second-most common language in the United States with some 41.8 million speakers, has been neglected among environmental health scientists. Building capacity in high-quality Spanish-language science communication, both for scientific and nonscientific audiences, can yield improvements in health disparities research, public health literacy, international collaborations, and diversity and inclusion efforts., Objectives: In this article, we discuss the context of language diversity in environmental health sciences and offer recommendations for improving science communication in Spanish., Discussion: English is currently the predominant language for scientific discourse, but Spanish and other non-English languages are routinely used by many environmental health science students and professionals, as well as much of the public. To more effectively conduct and communicate environmental health work in Spanish, we suggest that researchers and scientific institutions a ) foster structural changes, b ) train emerging scholars and support established researchers, c ) tap into community ways of knowing, and d ) leverage emerging technologies. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12306.