Comment on “State-of-the-Science Data and Methods Need to Guide Place-Based Efforts to Reduce Air Pollution Inequity”

Gohlke et al.¹ summarized approaches for air pollution measurements and modeling to guide the implementation and evaluation of federal and state policies to reduce disproportionate harms in impacted communities. Here, we pose an alternative framing that urges the air pollution research community to move beyond our own goals as researchers and toward supporting pressing needs that have already been identified among those disproportionately impacted by environmental racism and associated air pollution exposures.

The authors frame the challenge of eliminating air pollution inequities and evaluating the associated government investments as a data scarcity issue, when the issue is actually a failure of governments to improve the material living conditions of populations that are suffering. Framing the issue as a need for new data and methods inadvertently invalidates decades of community testimony, air pollution health studies, and the widespread understanding that the immediate elimination of harmful air pollution sources is the best course of action for preserving human health. We also posit that existing localized datasets are underutilized and, at times, deliberately ignored during critical land use and zoning decision-making. The commentary cites ample evidence to support immediate action to eliminate well-characterized sources—namely, fossil fuel–powered mobile and stationary sources—in low-income communities and communities of color.

Furthermore, calling for more data in affected communities supports the perpetuation of “burden-of-proof” studies for populations that already have ample evidence of disproportionate harm and are actively seeking community-grounded interventions for air pollution reduction. Such studies, which often require community involvement and lead to no reparative action, are redundant and patronizing for those continuously impacted. We should not understate the fact that many affected communities are organized and already know what interventions they want to see implemented in their neighborhoods, nor should we undermine those efforts by calling for more data.

If we continue to frame our efforts as environmental justice research, we should maintain the original spirit of environmental justice, that is, repairing harms against those disproportionately affected by environmental racism. Research focused on developing new methods and modeling approaches to support existing and future policy can be framed as “policy advocacy” or “accountability research.” Research focused on highlighting exposure inequities in the absence of reparative measures can be framed as “environment equity studies.” Highlighting inequities in the absence of reparation is not justice, and framing it as such could stall critical action toward the latter. We agree that new methods and data are needed to evaluate policy effectiveness, but we oppose the notion that such tools are a prerequisite for taking informed action to eliminate well-characterized disparities.