Differences in Long Term Exposure to Wildfire Smoke Among People Who Are Incarcerated Compared to People Who Are Not Incarcerated in California, 2015–2020

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Wildfire smoke exposure is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes. People who are incarcerated may be especially vulnerable to smoke exposure because, compared to non‐incarcerated people, they lack agency to control their exposure. The goal of this study, within California, is to (a) geographically characterize wildfire‐attributable PM 2.5 exposure from 2015 to 2020 and (b) to determine whether the burden of wildfire PM 2.5 exposure is higher in neighborhoods that contain carceral facilities compared to neighborhoods without carceral facilities. Data on wildfire‐attributable PM 2.5 was linked to census‐tract level counts of incarcerated and non‐incarcerated populations. Statewide statistics on wildfire‐attributable PM 2.5 were calculated for five exposure metrics: (a) number of weeks with wildfire PM 2.5 > 5 μg/m 3 , (b) number of days with non‐zero wildfire PM 2.5 , (c) mean daily wildfire PM 2.5 during the peak exposure week, (d) number of smoke waves (defined as ≥2 consecutive days with >15 μg/m 3 wildfire PM 2.5 ), and (e) average of the annual mean wildfire PM 2.5 concentrations. To spatially compare wildfire PM 2.5 exposure among incarcerated people to non‐incarcerated neighbors, population‐weighted exposure metrics were calculated for each tract containing incarcerated people and compared to surrounding tracts' exposures using non‐incarcerated population weights. Across California, census tracts containing incarcerated people had heightened wildfire‐attributable PM 2.5 exposures and a large proportion of California's incarcerated population (48.5%) resided in tracts in the highest quartile of non‐zero wildfire PM 2.5 days compared to non‐incarcerated people (25.9%). Prisons and jails in areas that have high wildfire smoke exposure levels should improve ventilation capabilities, provide protective equipment and develop preparedness plans.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.