• PM2.5 concentrations: tiny air pollution particles, less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter, that can penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream, posing serious health risks • The number of facilities reporting to the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (essentially, a count of major polluting industries in an area) The findings were stark: people with higher incomes were more likely to move to areas with cleaner air. For example, counties with six micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic meter attracted, on average, 3% more movers than those with eight micrograms. Additionally, movers to less polluted areas had incomes 7% higher than those relocating to more polluted regions. This is concerning, as several studies have shown that a 1 μg/m³ increase in PM2.5 is associated with a 0.6%–1.2% increase in all-cause mortality. It is a modern-day tale of environmental privilege – the ability to buy your way to cleaner air. COMPLEX DECISION-MAKING Residential choices depend on more than just environmental quality. Understanding migration patterns and their relationship with environmental quality requires careful consideration of numerous factors that influence where people choose to live. Job opportunities play a crucial role – people might accept lower environmental quality if it means better employment prospects. Local amenities such as parks, schools, and shopping areas also factor in. Demographics of potential destinations matter too, as people often prefer to live in communities like their own. And of course, the costs of moving itself – both financial and personal – can significantly impact choices. Even after considering all these factors, the relationship between income and environmental quality held strong. IMPLICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Our findings challenge traditional approaches to tackling pollution and how we think about environmental justice. While stricter regulations and clean-up initiatives are essential, they may not address the root causes of environmental inequality. Wealthier residents can ‘escape’ polluted areas, leaving lower-income families behind and further entrenching disparities. The results of our related study published in 2021 add another layer to the issue: polluting companies in poorer areas tend to invest less in pollution prevention, exacerbating environmental harm in poorer communities. This creates a vicious cycle, where pollution drives wealthier residents away, further concentrating poverty and pollution. BREAKING THE CYCLE Addressing environmental inequality requires a multi-dimensional approach. Environmental policies must be coordinated with social policies that address income inequality and housing affordability. For example, when the US Environmental Protection Agency designates an area as having poor air quality, it triggers various clean-up requirements. However, if wealthier residents simply move away before improvements take effect, it could further concentrate poverty in polluted areas. Efforts to clean up polluted areas should be paired with measures ensuring equitable access to these improved environments. The stark reality is that in many places income determines access to clean air. As the case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah reminds us, the right to breathe clean air should not depend on economic privilege. Tackling these issues is critical for creating a more just and sustainable future. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 37 Dr Aurelie Slechten is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics. Her main research interests revolve around Environmental Economics, Applied Microeconomics, and Market Design. The paper Tiebout Sorting and Toxic Releases by Dr Aurelie Slechten, Professor Dakshina De Silva, and Dr Anita Schiller, of Lancaster University Management School; and Dr Leonard Wolk, of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, is published in Environmental and Resource Economics. a.slechten@lancaster.ac.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTI5NzM=