Abstract

Health and equity impacts of alternative air quality management strategies: A quantitative heath impact assessment for Detroit, Michigan

Sheena Martenies, MPH1, Angela G. Reyes, MPH2 and Stuart Batterman, PhD3
(1)University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, (2)Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation, Detroit, MI, (3)University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI

APHA 2016 Annual Meeting & Expo (Oct. 29 - Nov. 2, 2016)

Purpose: Portions of the Detroit area currently exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2). The population in and around the non-attainment area is vulnerable to the adverse health effects of SO2 exposure due to high rates of asthma and other environmentally-related diseases. We examine alternative strategies for reducing SO2 concentrations that both meet the NAAQS and that address health inequities experienced by residents. Study Question: What are the health and equity impacts of SO2 emission control alternatives developed for point sources near Detroit, MI? Methods: SO2 emission control strategies are developed using modeling and optimization techniques that meet the NAAQS, maximize health benefits, or minimize the unequal distributions of potential health impacts. Quantitative health impact assessment (HIA) techniques tailored to the intra-urban scale are used to estimate the health burden of exposures based on 2013 emissions at 10 major SO2 sources in the area. Health benefits are determined as avoided adverse outcomes for each control alternative. Outcomes considered include asthma exacerbations among children and hospitalizations for respiratory disease. Inequality in the distribution of impacts across the study population is measured using the Atkinson index and other measures of inequality. Results: At baseline, each year, SO2 exposures led to an estimated 40 respiratory hospitalizations, 75 emergency department visits for asthma, and more than 5000 asthma exacerbations among children. The health benefits of control alternatives depend on the tonnage of emissions reduced at the different sources and the proximity of populations to sources. Differences between alternative strategies are demonstrated using the concentration, health, and inequality metrics. Conclusions: Quantitative HIAs can identify the health and equity impacts of air quality management alternatives. Health and equity metrics can be used to select alternatives that meet the NAAQS as well as improve public health and help reduce health inequities.

Environmental health sciences