Examining the Association between Socioeconomic Status and Exposure to Carcinogenic Emissions in Gyeonggi of South Korea: A Multi-Level Analysis

Jeong-Il Park,Hye-Seon Kwon

doi:10.3390/su11061777

Abstract

Although South Korea introduced the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register system in 1996, there is relatively limited evidence on how socioeconomic status at both individual and municipal levels is associated with exposure to toxic chemicals in Korea because of limited data sources. Using a multi-level negative binomial model, this study examined the socioeconomic status of both individuals and municipalities with a higher level of exposure to carcinogenic emissions from industrial facilities in Gyeonggi province, South Korea. The results reveal that economic minority individuals (national basic livelihood security recipients, unemployed people, and tenants), municipalities with higher percentages of industrial land use, and foreign-born populations had more facilities that produce carcinogenic emissions. While similar findings have been reported by many environmental justice studies conducted in other countries, this is the first Korean case study that reports the relationship between socioeconomic status at both individual and municipal levels and exposure to toxic chemicals.

Highlights

The sociologist Ulrich Beck [1] originally stated that “poverty is hierarchic, while smog is democratic” (p.32)
This study empirically analyzed how facilities that produce carcinogenic emissions are inequitably distributed among individuals and municipalities with different socioeconomic status (SES) in Gyeonggi, South Korea
There is limited previous evidence for how individual level SES factors are associated with exposure to toxic chemicals in Korea because most studies use data aggregated at the regional level

Summary

Introduction

The sociologist Ulrich Beck [1] originally stated that “poverty is hierarchic, while smog is democratic” (p.32). This means that, with the expansion of risks affecting the environment and the human health, social differences and limitations are relativized, and the risks apply to everyone [1]. Many environmental justice studies have empirically showed that people with different socioeconomic status (SES), such as race, income, and educational attainment, are exposed to and affected by risks at various levels [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Ulrich Beck has changed his position that emphasized the universality of environmental risks to a new one emphasizing the inequitable distribution of environmental risks [11,12]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion