Appendix – Socio-demographic Characteristics of Populations in Core Based Statistical 

Areas with Ozone Monitors Exceeding Proposed Ozone Standards

This appendix describes a limited screening-level analysis of the socio-demographic 

characteristics of populations living in counties within Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) with 

at least one county having an ozone monitor with a current (2011-2013) design value exceeding 

the proposed range of ozone standard levels, 65 to 70 parts per billion (ppb). This appendix 

describes the technical approach used in the analysis, discusses uncertainties and limitations 

associated with the analysis, and presents results.

1.0 Introduction 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629; Feb. 16, 1994), directs federal agencies, 

to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice (EJ) part 

of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Accordingly, the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) has conducted a limited analysis of population demographics in some areas that may 

be affected by the proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

for ozone.

The EPA Administrator is proposing to revise the NAAQS for ozone from the current level of 75

ppb to within the range of 65 to 70 ppb, while also soliciting comment on retaining the current 

standard and levels down to 60 ppb. This proposed rule will establish uniform national standards 

for ozone in ambient air. The proposed revisions would improve public health protection for atrisk groups, especially children. Therefore, as stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA 

has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 

including any minority or low-income population. Although EPA believes that the proposed 

ozone NAAQS will not have any adverse impacts on any population group, the Agency has 

elected to conduct a limited analysis of key socio-demographic characteristics of populations 

living in areas of interest, defined for this analysis as any CBSA with at least one county having 

an ozone monitor with a current (2011-2013) design value exceeding the proposed range of 

ozone standard levels (65 to 70 ppb), and also including individual counties not included in a 

CBSA with a design value exceeding the proposed range of standards. 

2.0 Design of Analysis 

To gain a better understanding of the populations within the areas of interest, the EPA conducted 

an analysis at the county level for areas of interest for this ozone NAAQS review. The areas of 

interest for these analyses were defined as all counties contained within any CBSA with at least 

one monitor with a current (2011-2013) design value above the proposed range of standard levels 
(65 to 70 ppb) as well as counties not in a CBSA with a current (2011-2013) design value above 

the proposed range of standard levels (65 ppb70 ppb65 to 70 ppb). The areas of interest were 

designed to try to capture population and communities most likely to benefit from improved air 

quality resulting from implementation of the proposed ozone NAAQS revisions.

At the lower end of the range of proposed standard levels of 65 ppb, this definition of the areas 

of interest resulted in 953 counties being analyzed, 888 in 265 CBSAs and 65 outside CBSAs. At 

the upper end of the range of proposed standard levels of 70 ppb, this resulted in 707 counties 

being analyzed, 680 in 182 CBSAs and 27 outside CBSAs. The demographic variables used in 

this analysis include race, ethnicity, age, economic and education data. Details on these 

demographic groups are provided in the following section (2.1). 

To compare the demographic data in the areas of interest to the national data, the data from the 

identified counties were aggregated to represent the areas of interest identified by the lower and 

upper end of the proposed range of standard levels. This analysis identifies, on a limited basis, 

the subpopulations that may experience reductions in ozone concentrations as a result of actions 

taken to meet the proposed range of standard levels and thus are expected to benefit most from 

this regulation. This analysis does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most 

highly affected individuals or communities nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those 

individuals or communities. To the extent that any minority, low-income or indigenous 

subpopulation is disproportionately impacted by ozone levels because they reside in an area of 

interest, that subpopulation also stands to see increased environmental and health benefit from 

meeting the more protective proposed standard levels. 

The aggregated demographic sub-population values across the areas of interest are compared to 

the national data and are listed in Table 4 in section 4.0

2.1 Demographic Variables Included in Analysis

This analysis includes race, ethnicity, and age data derived from the 2010 Census SF1 dataset1

and economic and education data from the Census Bureau’s 2006-2010 American Community 

Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates.2 This data is summarized in Table 1, with Table 2 notating the 

six socioeconomic indictors of social vulnerability used within this report.

Table 1. Census Derived Demographic Data

Race, Ethnicity, and Age Data (Census 2010 block-level SF1 data)*

Parameter Definition

Population Total population 

White Number of whites (may include Hispanics)

African Americans Number of African Americans (may include Hispanics)

Native Americans Number of Native Americas (may include Hispanics)

Other and multiracial Number of other race and multiracial (may include 

Hispanics)

Hispanic Number of Hispanics

Age 0 to 4 Number of people age 0 to 4

Age 0 to 17 Number of people age 0 to 17
Age 65 and up Number of people age 65 and up

Economic and Education Date (2006-2010 ACS)*

Parameter Definition

Poverty Number of people living in households with income below 

the poverty line

2 x Poverty Number of people living in households with income below 

twice the poverty line

Linguistic isolation Number of people linguistically isolated

*Census 2010 does not currently report this data for the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 

and the Northern Marianas; Census 2000 data are used for these areas.

Table 2. Social Vulnerability Data

Social Vulnerability Indicators (Census 2010 data):

 Minority/Hispanic (%)

 Low Income (%)

 Under Age 5 (%)

 Age 65 and up (%)

 Adults without a high school diploma (%)

 Linguistically isolated (%) 

The EPA uses the six socioeconomic demographic parameters shown in Table 2 from the 2010 

Census as indicators of social vulnerability. The economic and education indicators used in this 

group were derived from the Census Bureau’s 2006-2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates. These six 

subgroups of the population are included as social vulnerability indicators because there exists a 

substantive and easily-understood relationship between the indicator and the concept of 

vulnerability, which is consistent with the EPA guidance regarding the use of vulnerability 

indicators in environmental justice-related analyses. 

“Minority” means a person, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census, who is a: (1) Black 

American (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa); (2) Hispanic

person (a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish 

culture or origin, regardless of race); (3) Asian American or Pacific Islander (a person having 

origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or 

the Pacific Islands); or (4) American Indian or Alaskan Native (a person having origins in any of 

the original people of North America and maintain cultural identification through tribal 

affiliation or community recognition). Because the Census Bureau does not classify Hispanic as 

a race but as an ethnicity, the race minority field is computed by subtracting the white population 

from the total population. A separate “Minority/Hispanic” field is calculated by adding the 

number of white Hispanics to the race minority field count. The “Minority/Hispanic” field is 

used as one of the social vulnerability indicators. Compared to non-minority (white) populations 

in the U.S., numerous studies have found that minority populations live in closer proximity to 

pollution sources, experience worse health, and have less ability to participate in environmental 

decision making. 3

The percentage of people living below the national poverty line is defined by the Census as the 

percentage of residents whose median household income is at or below the poverty guidelines 
updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2).4 Low income has been linked in many 

studies to poor health, lack of access to health care, closer proximity to pollution sources, and 

greater susceptibility to illnesses caused by exposure to air pollution. 5 Low income in this 

appendix is defined as 2 X poverty line.

The percentage of residents whose age is less than 5 years includes infants and children – all of 

whom are considered a sensitive subpopulation for many forms of environmental contaminants, 

including air pollution.6 The reasons for children’s increased sensitivity to air pollution are 

manifold and include: still-developing respiratory and other bodily systems; smaller body size in 

proportion to inhaled contaminants; and varying behavior patterns including longer durations 

spent outdoors at high breathing rates compared to adults.7 These factors lead to increased 

morbidity and mortality risks for children from exposure to air pollutants.8 Furthermore, 

minority and low-income children are at even greater risk, as the increased susceptibility for each 

of these demographic groups compounds such a child’s overall vulnerability.9 

The percentage of residents of age 65 years and over is considered a sensitive subpopulation for 

many forms of environmental contamination, including air pollution.10 The increased 

susceptibility of this subpopulation stems not only from their age, but also from their poorer 

health and lower fitness levels.11 Those age 65 years and up have a higher mortality risk—both 

long-term and short-term—than other populations from air pollution, as well as increased 

morbidity risks including cardiovascular illness and respiratory disease.12 

The percentage of residents lacking a high school diploma is considered a relevant indicator of 

vulnerability because lack of education may indirectly increase the effects of environmental 

contamination, including air pollution. Low education may decrease access to health care and 

information about environmental risks and how to respond appropriately to such risks.13 Studies 

have revealed that low education appears to be a factor in health disparities, multi-morbidity, and 

mortality in general; and lower education may increase the relative risk of air pollution and 

premature mortality.14 In particular, this association was established after examining the 

relationship between an increase in particulate matter and mortality among persons with lower 

education.15 

The percentage of residents experiencing linguistic isolation is considered a relevant indicator of 

vulnerability because linguistic isolation may render households less able to identify and mitigate 

environmental harms by limiting both access to health care and access to information about 

environmental risks and how to respond appropriately to those risks.16 Studies have revealed 

that counties with higher concentrations of immigrants and linguistically isolated households 

have more hazardous waste generators and more proposed Superfund sites, compared to other 

counties.17 For example, a significant cancer risk was found between linguistically isolated 

households and exposure from Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) releases in the San Francisco Bay 

area.18 Finally, immigrants may encounter discrimination and prejudice which impact 

vulnerability.

As noted above, the EPA uses population data collected by the 2010 Census. Table 3 

summarizes where precisely the social vulnerability indicator data is located within the Census 
results, including the level of geographic resolution in the original census data set. All data is 

stored at the block level. For those indicators available from the Census at the block group, but 

not block level, the EPA assigns a block the same percentage as the block group of which it is a 

part. For example, a block is assigned the same percentage of people living below the national 

poverty line as the block group in which it is contained. Nationally, a census block contains 

about 50 people on average; and a block group contains about 26 blocks on average, or about 

1,350 people. (For comparison, a census tract is larger than a block group, with each tract 

containing an average of 3 block groups, or about 4,300 people). For this analysis the data was 

aggregated to the county level.

As shown in Table 3, data on race, ethnicity and age for all census blocks in the country except 

for the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas were obtained from 

the 2010 Census SF1 dataset.19 This dataset gives a breakdown of the population for each census 

block among different racial and ethnic classifications, including: White, African American or

Black, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Native Alaskan, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other 

South Pacific Islander, other race, and two or more races. Race, ethnicity, and age data for 

census blocks in the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas are 

from the 2000 Census, and were derived from the year 2000 “Island Surveys” which were 

available through the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder.20 

Table 3. Summary of Social Vulnerability Indicators provided by Census 2010

Parameter Source of Census Data

Level of Geographic 

Resolution

(Census Block or Block Group)

Minority/Hispanic 

Populationab

SF1 Tables P1 and P3 Block

People < 18 years of ageb SF1 Table P12 Block 

People ≥ 65 years of ageb SF1 Table P12 Block

Low Income 2006-2010 ACS Block Group

Adults without a High 

School diploma

2006-2010 ACS Block Group

Linguistically Isolated 

People

2006-2010 ACS Block Group

a Minority/Hispanic population = Total population (P0010001) minus white population 

(P0030003) 

b Census 2010 does not currently report this data for the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 

and the Northern Marianas; Census 2000 data are used for these areas.

Data on age distributions in the U.S. and Puerto Rico were obtained at the census block level 

from the 2010 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 1 (SF1) short form, Table P12. 
SF1 contains the information compiled from the questions asked of all people about every 

housing unit. Data on poverty status, education level, and linguistic isolation in the U.S. and 

Puerto Rico were obtained at the block group level from the Census Bureau’s 2006-2010 ACS.21 

Data for the Virgin Islands and other island territories (Guam, American Samoa, and the 

Northern Marianas) were retrieved from similar tables, which are available through the Census’ 

American Fact Finder internet portal, www.factfinder.census.gov. 

3.0 Considerations in Evaluating and Interpreting Results 

As noted above, EPA has determined that the proposed rule would provide more protective 

uniform national standards for ozone in ambient air and that this proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or lowincome populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected 

populations.

This analysis characterizes the socio-demographic attributes of populations located in areas 

defined by a county or a CBSA containing a county with a monitor DV greater than 65 ppb and 

70 ppb. Therefore, the results of this analysis can only be used to inform whether there are 

differences in the composition of populations residing within these areas relative to the nation as 

a whole. As noted earlier, the purpose of the analysis is to determine whether populations of 

interest from an EJ perspective have a higher representation in areas that exceed the proposed 

range of ozone standard levels, and thus may be more affected by strategies to attain alternative 

standards. This analysis does not include a quantitative assessment of exposure and/or risk for 

specific populations of potential interest from an EJ-perspective, and therefore it cannot be used 

to draw any conclusions regarding potential disparities in exposure or risk across populations of 

interest from an EJ perspective. Nor can it be used to draw conclusions about any disparities in 

the health and environmental benefits that result from strategies to attain alternative ozone 

standards.

In order to clearly identify disparities in risk between populations of interest, we would need to 

conduct rigorous site-specific population-level exposure and risk assessments, that take into 

account short-term mobility (daily patterns of travel linked for example to school or work) or 

long-term mobility (families moving into or out of specific block groups).

4.0 Presentation of Results 

This section presents a summary of the results for the assessment of demographic characteristics 

of populations in areas with ozone monitors with measured values greater than the levels of the 

proposed range of ozone standards. The results are also provided in tabular form. As stated 

previously, the EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 

having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or low-income population. 

As a whole, the demographic distributions within the areas of interest estimated for the proposed 

range of standard levels (i.e., 65 ppb to 70 ppb) correspond well to the national averages. Table 4 
presents these results and the raw data used in this assessment. The population totals and 

subtotals by demographic group as well as the percentages of the demographic groups for the 

nation and for the lower and upper end of the proposed range of standard levels (65 ppb and 70 

ppb) are shown. Most of the sub-populations are within a few percentage points of the national 

average. The largest difference is between the national and study area percentages for the 

Minority/Hispanic demographic group and that is a difference of only 5%. Overall, these 

qualitative results support the determination that the proposed rule will not have disproportionate 

human health or environmental impacts on any population. Perhaps more importantly these 

results provide EPA much needed insight into how and with whom to best target efforts to 

inform communities about the proposed rule and otherwise ensure their meaningful involvement 

in the rulemaking process. 

Table 4 - Summary of Population Totals and Demographic Categories for Areas of Interest 

and National Perspective

Demographic 

Summary Population White

African 

American

Native 

American

Other or 

Multiracial

Minority / 

Hispanic

Area of Interest Total

 65 ppb 221,431,286 153,706,027 30,429,108 1,726,110 35,570,041 67,725,259

 70 ppb 193,316,836 132,112,738 27,193,155 1,488,364 32,522,579 61,204,098

% of Area of Interest Total

 65 ppb 69% 14% 1% 16% 31%

 70 ppb 68% 14% 1% 17% 32%

National 

Total 312,861,256 226,405,205 39,475,216 2,952,087 44,028,748 115,989,918

% of 

National 

Total 72% 13% 1% 14% 37%

Demographic 

Summary

Linguistically 

Isolated Age 0 - 4 Age 0 - 17 Age 65+

Without a 

HS 

Diploma

Low 

Income

Area of Interest Total

 65 ppb 13,072,109 14,695,948 54,008,810 27,163,990 20,914,891 67,027,700

 70 ppb 12,179,896 12,849,637 47,296,147 23,518,071 18,495,474 58,296,224

% of Area of Interest Total

 65 ppb 6% 7% 24% 12% 14% 30%

 70 ppb 6% 7% 24% 12% 15% 30%

National 

Total 19,196,507 20,465,065 75,217,176 40,830,262 30,952,789 101,429,436

% of 

National 

Total 6% 7% 24% 13% 15% 32%

1

2010 Census Summary File 1 Delivered via FTP, http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/04-Summary_File_1/

2

U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2010_release/

3 Brulle, Robert J. and David N. Pellow. 2006. Environmental Justice: Human Health and Environmental Inequalities. Annu. Rev. Public Health 

27:103–24. http://publhealth.annualreviews.org; Cutter, Susan. 2006. The Geography of Social Vulnerability: Race, Class, and Catastrophe. 

Understanding Katrina. Social Sciences Research Council. June 11. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter/; Gold, Diane R. and Rosalind 

Wright. 2005. Population Disparities in Asthma. Annu. Rev. Public Health 26:89–113; Nelson DA, Johnson CC, Divine GW, Strauchman C, 

Joseph CL, Ownby DR. 1997. Ethnic Differences in the Prevalence of Asthma in Middle Class Children. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 78:21–

26; O’Neill et al., 2003. Health, Wealth, and Air Pollution: Advancing Theory and Methods, 111 Environmental Health Perspectives 16: 1861, 

1865, http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2003/6334/abstract.html; Friebele, E. 1996. The Attack of Asthma. Env. Health Persp. 104:1, January, pp. 

22-25.; Gwynn, R. Charon, and George D. Thurston. 2001. The Burden of Air Pollution: Impacts among Racial Minorities. Environ Health 

Perspect. 109 (Suppl 4): 501–506 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240572/pdf/ehp109s-000501.pdf; American Lung 

Association. 2007. State of Lung Disease in Diverse Communities. August.; USEPA. 2004. Office of Environmental Justice. Toolkit for 

Assessing Potential Allegations of Environmental Injustice. November 3; Bullard, Robert D. and et al. 2007. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty 

1987-2007: Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle Environmental Racism in the United States. Cleveland: The United Church of Christ. March.

4 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Frequently Asked Questions Related to the Poverty Guidelines and Poverty. 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml

5 USEPA. Office of Environmental Justice. 2004. Toolkit for Assessing Potential Allegations of Environmental Injustice. November 3; Cutter, 

Susan. 2006. The Geography of Social Vulnerability: Race, Class, and Catastrophe. Understanding Katrina. Social Sciences Research Council. 

June 11. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter/; Jiang Y, Hesser JE. 2009. Using Item Response Theory to Analyze the Relationship 

Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Health Risk Factors. Prev Chronic Dis. 6(1); Brulle, Robert J. and David N. Pellow. 2006. 

Environmental Justice: Human Health and Environmental Inequalities. 27:103–24. http://publhealth.annualreviews.org; American Heart 

Association. Air Pollution, Heart Disease and Stroke. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419; Friebele E. 1996. The 

Attack of Asthma. Env. Health Persp. 104:1, January, pp. 22-25; Gwynn, R. Charon, and George D. Thurston. 2001. The Burden of Air Pollution: 

Impacts among Racial Minorities. Environ Health Perspect. August; 109 (Suppl 4):501–506 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240572/pdf/ehp109s-000501.pdf; USEPA. 2008. Assessment and Standards Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine 

Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder. EPA420-R-08-001a, p. 2-57.

6 American Lung Association. 2009. Protect the Air we Breathe. February. 

http://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/PROTECT_THE_AIR_WE_BREATHE.pdf.

7 USEPA. 2004. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. RTP, NC. EPA/600/P-99/002aF-bF. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903; USEPA. Factors for Identifying and Assessing Disproportionate Environmental 

Health Impacts; USEPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment; National Resources Defense Council. Our Children at Risk: The 5 Worst 

Environmental Threats to Their Health. http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap4.asp

8 USEPA. 2004. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/P-99/002aF-bF. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903; Host S; et al. 2007. Short-term Associations Between Fine and Coarse Particles 

and Cardiorespiratory Hospitalizations in Six French Cities. Occup Environ Med; Mar TF; et al. 2004. An Analysis of the Association Between 

Respiratory Symptoms in Subjects with Asthma and Daily Air Pollution in Spokane, Washington. Inhal Toxicol 16:809-815; Mauad T; et al. 

2008. Chronic Exposure to Ambient Levels of Urban Particles Affects Mouse Lung Development. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 178: 721-728; 

Peel JL; et al. 2005. Ambient Air Pollution and Respiratory Emergency Department Visits. Epidemiology, 16:164-174; Pinkerton KE; et al. 2004. 

Reduced Lung Cell Proliferation Following Short-Term Exposure to Ultrafine Soot and Iron Particles in Neonatal Rats: Key to Impaired Lung 

Growth? Inhal Toxicol 1:73-81; National Resources Defense Council. Our Children at Risk: The 5 Worst Environmental Threats to Their Health. 

http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap4.asp; Gauderman, et al. 2004. The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years 

of Age. N Engl J Med 351:1057-1067. September 9. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa040610?ck=nck&#articleTop; Neidell, 

Matthew J. 2004. Air Pollution, Health, and Socio-economic Status: the Effect of Outdoor Air Quality on Childhood Asthma. Journal of Health 

Economics 23: pp.1209–1236.

9 O’Neill et al. 2003. Health, Wealth, and Air Pollution: Advancing Theory and Methods. Environmental Health Perspectives 16: pp.1861, 1865. 

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2003/6334/abstract.html; Gold, et al. 1993. Race and Gender Differences in Respiratory Illness Prevalence and 

Their Relationship to Environmental Exposures in Children 7 to 14 Years of Age. Am Rev Respir Dis.148(1):10-8; Neidell, Matthew J. 2004. Air 

Pollution, Health, and Socio-economic Status: the Effect of Outdoor Air Quality on Childhood Asthma. Journal of Health Economics 23: 

pp.1209–1236.

10 American Lung Association. 2009. Protect the Air we Breathe. February.

11 USEPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment.

12 Gerber et al. 2010. Cumulative Exposure to Air Pollution and long term outcomes after first acute myocardial infarction: A population-based 

cohort study. BMC Public Health 10:369. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/369; American Heart Association. Air Pollution, Heart 

Disease and Stroke. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419; National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences. 

Elderly Have Higher Risk for Cardiovascular, Respiratory Disease From Fine Particle Pollution. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2006/niehs08.htm; National Resources Defense Council. Our Children at Risk: The 5 Worst Environmental Threats to Their Health. 

http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap4.asp; Franklin M; Zeka A; Schwartz J. 2007. Association Between PM2.5 and All-Cause and SpecificCause Mortality in 27 US Communities. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 17:279-87.; 

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/JESEE2005.pdf; Ostro B, et al. 2006. Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in Nine California 

Counties: Results from CALFINE. Environ Health Perspect, 114:29-33.; 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hero/index.cfm?action=search.view&reference_id=87991; Samoli E; et al. 2008. Acute Effects of Ambient Particulate 

Matter on Mortality in Europe and North America: Results From the APHENA Study. Environ Health Perspect 116:1480-1486. 

 
 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hero/index.cfm?action=search.view&reference_id=188455; Zeka A; Zanobetti A; Schwartz J. 2006. Individual-Level 

Modifiers of the Effects of Particulate Matter on Daily Mortality. Am J Epidemiol, 163:849-859. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hero/index.cfm?action=search.view&reference_id=88749.

13 USEPA. 2004. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors:

Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts.

14 DeWalt, Darren A., Marylee H. Dilling, Marjorie S. Rosenthal, and Michael P. Pignone. 2007. Low Parental Literacy Associated with Worse 

Asthma Care Measures in Children. Ambul Pediatr 7(1): 25–31. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797805/pdf/nihms17216.pdf; 

Banks J, Marmot M, Oldfield Z, Smith JP. 2006. Disease and disadvantage in the United States and in England. JAMA 295(17):2037-45; Nagel, 

Gabriele, Richard Peter, Stefanie Braig, Silke Hermann, Sabine Rohrmann and Jakob Linseisen. 2008. The Impact of Education on Risk Factors 

and the Occurrence of Multimorbidity in the EPIC-Heidelberg Cohort. BMC Public Health 8:384. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-

2458/8/384; Adler NE, and K Newman. 2002. Socioeconomic Disparities in Health: Pathways and Policies. Heath Aff (Millwood) 21(2):60-76; 

Kan, et al. 2008. Season, Sex, Age, and Education as Modifiers of the Effects of Outdoor Air Pollution on Daily Mortality in Shanghai, China: 

The Public Health and Air Pollution in Asia (PAPA) Study. Environ Health Perspect, 116:1183-1188; Levy, Jonathon I., Susan L. Greco, John D. 

Spengler. 2002. The Importance of Population Susceptibility for Air Pollution Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Power Plants Near Washington, 

DC. Environmental Health Perspectives, Dec. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12460806 .

15 Krewski D, Burnett RT, Goldberg MS, Hoover K, Siemiatycki J, Jerrett M, et al. 2000. Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the 

American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. Health Effects Institute. Cambridge, MA; Krewski D; Jerrett M; 

Burnett RT; Ma R; Hughes E; Shi Y; Turner MC; Pope AC III; Thurston G; Calle EE; Thun MJ. 2009. Extended follow-up and spatial analysis 

of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality. Health Effects Institute. Cambridge, MA. 140; Ostro B; 

Broadwin R; Green S; Feng W-Y; Lipsett M. 2006. Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in nine California counties: results from 

CALFINE. Environ Health Perspect, 114:29-33.; Ostro BD; Feng WY; Broadwin R; Malig BJ; Green RS; Lipsett MJ. 2008. The impact of 

components of fine particulate matter on cardiovascular mortality in susceptible subpopulations. Occup Environ Med, 65: 750-756; Zeka A; 

Zanobetti A; Schwartz J. 2006. Individual-level modifiers of the effects of particulate matter on daily mortality. Am J Epidemiol, 163: 849-859.

16 Asian Pacific Environmental Network. Environmental Justice and API Issues. http://www.apen4ej.org/issues_api.htm; West Coast Poverty 

Center. 2010. Ethnic Residential Clustering and Health in West Coast States. Dialogues on Research and Policy. No. 2, March. 

http://depts.washington.edu/wcpc/sites/default/files/DIALOGUE%20No.%202.Ethnic%20Enclaves.webFN_.pdf; LeClere, E B., L. Jensen and A. 

E. Biddlecom. 1994. Health Care Utilization, Family Context, and Adaptation among Immigrants to the United States. Journal of Health and 

Social Behavior, 35 (4):370-384. December; Arias, Beatriz. 2007. School Desegregation, Linguistic Segregation and Access to English for Latino 

Students. Journal of Education Controversy 2(1) Winter. http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/CEP/eJournal/v002n001/a008.shtml.

17 San Francisco Department of Public Health. 2004. Unaffordable Housing: the Costs to Public Health. June. 

http://www.sfphes.org/publications/reports/UnaffordableHousingJune04.pdf; Pinderhughes, Racquel Rivera. 1996. Social and Economic 

Inequality in San Francisco: A Case Study of Environmental Risks in the City's Mission District. Based on a presentation made at the Conference 

on Urban Environmental Issues in the Bay Area. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy. Second Annual 

Environmental Law Symposium. March 23. http://bss.sfsu.edu/raquelrp/pub/1996_march_pub.html; Hunter, Lori M. 2000. The Spatial 

Association between U.S. Immigrant Residential Concentration and Environmental Hazards. International Migration Review. 34(2): pp. 460-488. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2675910.

18 Pastor, Manuel, James Sadd, Rachel Morello-Frosch. 2007. Still Toxic After All These Years: Air Quality and Environmental Justice in the 

San Francisco Bay Area. Center for Justice, Tolerance & Community. February. http://cjtc.ucsc.edu/docs/bay_final.pdf.

19 2010 Census Summary File 1 Delivered via FTP, http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/04-Summary_File_1/

20 American Fact Finder, 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_program=DEC&_lang=en

21 U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/2010_release/