Abstract
The study investigates multiple frameworks for evaluating cumulative impacts, focusing on the selection of indicators and their respective weighting in air quality-related decision-making processes while integrating climate change considerations. The main innovation of this study is the comparative analysis of cumulative impact assessment frameworks including context- and place-specific variables using quantitative metrics. The study assesses how methodological choices can influence the prioritization of communities within environmental justice policies and regulatory decision-making. Multiple frameworks were assessed, each tailored to the specific objectives of the decision-making process and the geographical context, and compared to a baseline model with minimal parameters. The context-specific model yielded results similar to the baseline but emphasized air quality parameters more heavily and increased average scores. In contrast, place-specific and hybrid models showed greater variance, influenced by factors such as proximity to coastal areas, flood risk, and health sensitivity. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the models with frameworks incorporating more indicators exhibiting greater variability and wider score distributions. The models also prioritized different communities at the 80th and 90th percentiles, highlighting that methodological choices within each framework can substantially influence which communities are being prioritized. The analysis also revealed high intercorrelation among certain parameters, reflecting the need for further exploration of how parameter selection influences their interrelationships. Sensitivity analysis on environmental weighting demonstrated that even when environmental burdens were weighed equally, they could not fully account for the cumulative impact of other variables, except in certain areas. Health sensitivity and socioeconomic factors had a more substantial effect when their weight was varied. The study concludes that while all frameworks capture the areas with the highest cumulative impacts, their choice has significant implications. Integration of lived experiences and community insights, alongside further research, is crucial for accurately capturing cumulative impacts and enhancing decision-making.
•Frameworks vary in how they choose and weigh different assessment parameters.•Framework choice strongly affects the overall decision-making process.•A context-specific framework amplifies key parameters related to the decision-making process.•Place-specific frameworks amplified impacts such as flood risk and coastal proximity.•Equal weighting of burdens misses cumulative impact of other key variables.•Lived experience and community input are key to capturing real impacts.