A Robust Definition of Environmental Justice Communities Must Be Intersectional

In 2021, thanks to the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act, Illinois’ Solar for All program was revamped to more effectively reach those who need access to solar the most. It was a big win: $30 million out of a $50 million budget was specifically earmarked for state-defined Environmental Justice (EJ) communities – the most socially and environmentally vulnerable populations, disproportionately made up of communities of color and low-income communities.

Defining which areas are are considered an EJ community has many implications. It determines the priorities of policies, programs, and oftentimes millions of dollars of investments intended to advance environmental justice. A concrete, clear definition is often the first step to an effective environmental justice policy. Without a precise and transparent definition of who should benefit or where problems should be addressed, a program’s or policy’s benefits will not reach those most in need.

To date, over 14 states have defined EJ communities (or equivalent) in state policy. Similarly, the federal government has established criteria for identifying EJ communities for its historic Justice40 Initiative. To designate EJ communities, agencies have considered categories of indicators such as socio-economic variables, environmental burdens, climate vulnerabilities, and public health metrics to guide how they identify the EJ communities. Learn more about how definitions and similar mechanisms can prioritize the most impacted communities in public policy in our most recent brief, Defining Environmental Justice Communities in Policy. 

How strong a definition is depends on what indicators are included (and excluded), as well as how they are considered. If indicators are considered in isolation, they may fail to recognize how burdens accumulate and compound one another. For example, children exposed to hazardous air pollutants and socio-economic stressors could result in worse health outcomes compared to pollution exposures alone.

It is important for EJ community criteria to be dynamic, co-developed and ground-truthed with relevant communities. When data are limited or unreliable – a common problem for rural areas – communities should be able to self-designate. In essence, when designed effectively, definitions of EJ communities can be a powerful tool to direct resources to those who are at the intersections of multiple social and environmental burdens. 

A Note on Terminology: Different states and agencies may use varied but similar terms for environmental justice communities. Other common terms include disadvantaged communities, frontline communities, overburdened communities, and historically underserved communities. 

Three Ways To Strengthen Equity Through Definitions

Many of the definitions and tools at both the state and federal levels lack a recognition of the intersection between environmental burdens and experiences such as incarceration, mental illness, and/or homelessness. However, as the climate crisis worsens, both empirical and anecdotal evidence offer compelling reasons for their consideration in decision-making. 

• Incarcerated or Formerly-Incarcerated Communities: The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the county, locking up nearly 1 percent of the adult population. With this scale of mass incarceration and reports of unsafe conditions in carceral institutions, those impacted by the criminal justice system are often at the frontlines of environmental crises (learn more about prison ecologies). Incarcerated populations are not only medically vulnerable but are increasingly susceptible to climate-driven exposures that may severely impact their mental and physical health. For example, prisons lacking proper ventilation and air conditioning can endanger thousands of lives during wildfires and extreme heat waves. New Mexico’s definition of Disproportionately Impact Communities acknowledges these burdens and includes “formerly incarcerated people.”
• Homelessness: Growing evidence indicates that unhoused populations are disproportionately affected by disasters due to their exposure to the elements and a systemic lack of institutional resources and services. Extreme weather can mean life or death for people already living outdoors. While almost all EJ screening tools exclude this indicator, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) included homelessness in its Disadvantaged Communities Reporter. DOE used this tool as an interim guide to identify Disadvantaged Communities prior to the release of the Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. Washington State is also considering homelessness as an “indicator under exploration” for identifying Overburdened Communities. 
• Mental Health: While the physical effects of climate change are well-considered in many definitions and screening tools, there is a glaring omission of how it may interact with or affect mental health. Environmental and climate hazards such as air pollution, extreme heat, floods, and storms have been linked to mental illnesses such as depression and post-traumatic stress. This coincides with an elevated risk of mental health problems for individuals who are houseless, people of color, young people, and older adults. Colorado’s EnviroScreen, the screening tool used to identify the state’s disproportionately impacted communities, includes mental health as a sensitive population indicator. 

Integrating these considerations are just a few of the important ways policymakers can make climate policies more equitable and intersectional. Policymakers can also ensure that  environmental justice stakeholders are adequately integrated into decision-making procedures. Overall, strengthening how the most vulnerable and impacted communities are defined and prioritized in policy will help set the building blocks for an equitable and just transition.