手法を比較

	Environmental Justice Spatial Analysis	Toxic Release Inventory Analysis
分野	Environmental Sociology	Environmental Sociology
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	2006	2004
提唱者	Robert D. Bullard; Paul Mohai & Robin Saha	Michael Ash & T. Robert Fetter (using EPA TRI / RSEI)
種類	Spatial pipeline for testing demographic disparities in hazard proximity	Toxicity-weighted spatial pipeline for distributional burden
原典	Mohai, P., & Saha, R. (2006). Reassessing Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Environmental Justice Research. Demography, 43(2), 383-399.	Ash, M., & Fetter, T. R. (2004). Who Lives on the Wrong Side of the Environmental Tracks? Evidence from the EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model. Social Science Quarterly, 85(2), 441-462.
別名	EJ Spatial Coincidence Analysis, Distance-Based Environmental Justice Assessment, Hazard-Demographic Proximity Analysis, Disparate Siting Analysis	TRI Distributional Analysis, Toxic Burden Disparity Analysis, RSEI-Based Exposure Analysis, Industrial Pollution Equity Analysis
関連	4	4
概要	Environmental justice spatial analysis tests whether environmentally hazardous facilities are located disproportionately near poor and minority communities by comparing the demographics of populations close to hazards with those farther away. The field grew out of Robert Bullard's foundational documentation in Dumping in Dixie that African American communities in the U.S. South systematically bore the burden of noxious land uses. A central methodological turning point came with Paul Mohai and Robin Saha's 2006 Demography article, which showed that the long-dominant 'unit-hazard coincidence' method, comparing only the host tract or zip code, badly understated disparities, and that distance-based methods reveal larger and more consistent inequities. The modern analysis therefore treats proximity explicitly, drawing buffers or distance bands around hazard sites and apportioning population within them. It then asks whether race and income predict who lives in the burdened zone, controlling for plausible confounders. The result is a spatially explicit test of the disparate-burden hypothesis at the heart of the environmental justice movement.	Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) analysis uses mandatory facility-level reports of industrial chemical releases to measure how the burden of toxic pollution is distributed across social groups. Rather than counting raw pounds of emissions, which treat a ton of an innocuous solvent the same as a ton of a potent carcinogen, the modern approach weights releases by toxicity and models how they disperse to populations. Michael Ash and T. Robert Fetter's 2004 study showed how the EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model, built on TRI, can be used to assign toxicity- and exposure-weighted pollution to neighborhoods and to test for disparities. They found consistent income and racial gradients: lower-income people and African Americans are exposed to more industrial air pollution, both across and within cities. The analysis combines the spatial-disparity logic of environmental justice with a chemical-specific account of harm. The result is a far more defensible burden measure than emission counts alone.