A comparison of population-level exposure and equity tradeoffs across strategies to reduce fine particulate matter emissions from transportation sources in the northeastern US.

BACKGROUND: Many climate mitigation policies to reduce transportation emissions have public health benefits related to ambient air pollution. However, few health analyses consider the equity implications of alternative policies. Equity can be conceptualized in many different ways that may be relevant to communities, decision-makers, and other stakeholders. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alternative transportation emissions reduction scenarios across the northeastern United States considering population exposure reductions and multiple equity constructs. METHODS: We developed four quantitative indicators reflecting equity constructs that aligned with stakeholder perspectives, including racial/ethnic exposure inequities, proportion of benefits in environmental justice communities, distribution of benefits among participating states, and rural/urban share of benefits. We analyzed numerous transportation emissions reduction scenarios for directly emitted fine particulate matter (primary PM2.5) covering 12 Northeast states and the District of Columbia. We used the Community Multiscale Air Quality model with the decoupled direct method to estimate the reduction in population-weighted primary PM2.5 exposure and the impact on equity for each scenario. RESULTS: Scenarios that yielded greater reductions in population-weighted primary PM2.5 exposure generally emphasized emissions reductions in urban areas or states with large urban centers, with a more than threefold difference in benefits across scenarios. The higher exposure-benefit scenarios typically also had greater reductions in racial/ethnic exposure inequities but led to higher between-state or rural/urban inequality. Scenarios that targeted uniform percentage emission reductions from light or heavy-duty trucks best addressed rural/urban inequalities but led to the smallest reductions in racial/ethnic inequity. CONCLUSION: There are intrinsic tradeoffs among equity constructs, where focusing resources on distributing benefits across states or between urban and rural populations could come at the expense of less reduction in racial/ethnic exposure inequities or in environmental justice communities. Future health benefits analyses should incorporate multiple equity indicators that reflect different stakeholder perspectives and articulate the underlying constructs and tradeoffs.