Â鶹app

Whether a community is prioritized for public support can depend on how its needs are measured, according to new UNH research. The study found significant differences in how government screening tools identify communities, particularly in rural areas where those differences could affect access to funding. 

Researchers compared four environmental justice screening tools, which use data on factors such as income, pollution, and health to identify communities that may need additional public support. Three were developed by the White House, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Transportation (DOT), while the fourth was developed by New York state. 

Nationally, the DOE tool designated about 18% of census tracts as disadvantaged, compared with about 35% for the White House and DOT tools. In New York state, more than half of census tracts (51.3%) were identified as disadvantaged by at least one of the four tools, but only about 14% were identified that way by all four.  

"We expected some differences, since each agency has its own mission. What surprised us was how large they were and how often they came from choices that aren't obvious from the documentation," says Qingran Li, assistant professor of economics at UNH's Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics. "The tools also disagreed more for rural communities, where resources tend to be more constrained, and investment may have historically lagged."  

The study, published in , was conducted by Li; Stephen Bird, director of UNH's Carsey School of Public Policy; Susan Powers of Clarkson University; and Thomas Robbins of Schneider Electric.  

Qingran Li

Urban areas were more consistently identified as disadvantaged across the four tools. The DOE tool did not designate any rural New York census tracts as disadvantaged, while New York’s own tool identified the greatest number of rural and suburban communities. 

The researchers note there is no single formula for measuring disadvantage. Screening tools can consider factors such as income, health, transportation access, environmental conditions and climate risks, but they don't necessarily use the same factors or assign them the same weight. They also differ in whether a community is compared with others nationwide, within its state or within its region. New York's tool, for example, accounts for regional differences, making it more likely that less urbanized communities are identified as disadvantaged. 

"One of the things we saw in some of the federal tools is that rural areas often are not highly prioritized, in part because environmental problems are diffuse, but the economic vulnerabilities in those areas are very real," Bird says. 

The findings also offer lessons for states like New Hampshire, where rural communities face challenges similar to those in New York's North Country, Bird notes. 

"Many rural burdens look different from urban ones, such as long distances with limited transportation options, an aging population, high heating costs, and reliance on fuel oil or propane. Tools built mainly around urban pollution, or around income measured against national or statewide benchmarks, may not fully capture those conditions," Li says. "For example, a rural New Hampshire town with moderate incomes but very high energy costs and long drives to healthcare services could be designated disadvantaged by one tool and not by another. That could affect its eligibility for weatherization, clean energy, or transportation funding."

Stephen Bird

While the federal government is no longer using the three screening tools examined in the study, many states and nonprofit organizations continue to use similar tools to identify vulnerable communities, direct funding, and inform policy decisions. New York, for instance, requires at least 35% of the benefits from its clean-energy investments to go to communities designated as disadvantaged under the state's tool. 

Despite the differences identified in the study, Bird says the screening tools represented an important advance in public policy. 

"These tools were the first attempts to quantify what disadvantage means in a way that can be constructively used for public policy," Bird says. "That was a massive leap from vague discussions of 'rural areas' or 'environmental justice.'" 

The researchers aren't arguing against the development of screening tools or suggesting that every agency should use the same one. Instead, they say policymakers should clearly define what they want a tool to accomplish and understand how its design shapes which communities it identifies. 

"My biggest hope is that they can more clearly outline the focus or goals in the tool outcomes, and link the design of the tools to those goals," Bird says. "That was the thing that was pretty fuzzy in all this." 

Li adds, "Every screening tool embeds priorities: which burdens count, how much each one counts, and whether communities are compared nationally, statewide, or regionally. Those priorities should match the goals of the program using the tool."