IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nceewp/348906.html

Comparative Analysis of Service Area Boundaries and Disparities in Drinking Water Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Austin, Wes
  • Bardot, Tina
  • El-Khattabi, Ahmed Rachid

Abstract

Service area boundaries are the geographic delineation of a drinking water system’s customer base. A lack of precise service area boundaries may introduce errors in how measures of water quality are geospatially assigned in academic or regulatory work, potentially hindering our ability to locate and accurately characterize environmental justice concerns in drinking water. Many advances have been made in the collection and modelling of service areas, but there has been minimal systematic testing of the implications of employing distinct service area boundary types in the published literature. While it is generally understood that more accurate service area assignment methods will improve the precision of environmental justice analyses of drinking water quality, it is unclear how various assignment methods would impact the conclusions of empirical analyses or the potential magnitude of bias. This paper aims to fill this gap by summarizing a set of relatively novel environmental justice indicators in drinking water across all known service area assignment methods. We explore drinking water quality measures for arsenic, bacterial detection, disinfection byproduct formation, lead, nitrates, PFAS, and health-based violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. We summarize each drinking water quality metric across service area assignment methods including the use of county served, zip codes served, the EPIC/SimpleLab dataset, boundaries created by the U.S. Geologic Survey, and a national data layer produced by EPA’s Office of Research and Development. We find disparities in drinking water quality with respect to every drinking water quality metric included in this analysis, and we find that conclusions regarding the presence of a disparity depend on the service area boundary selected for at least one group of environmental justice concern for each drinking water quality measure. This paper helps to motivate the importance of collecting service areas as well as producing and maintaining a high-quality nationally consistent geodatabase of drinking water system service areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Austin, Wes & Bardot, Tina & El-Khattabi, Ahmed Rachid, 2024. "Comparative Analysis of Service Area Boundaries and Disparities in Drinking Water Quality," National Center for Environmental Economics-NCEE Working Papers 348906, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nceewp:348906
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.348906
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/348906/files/2024-07_GS.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.348906?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Mohai & Robin Saha, 2006. "Reassessing racial and socioeconomic disparities in environmental justice research," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 43(2), pages 383-399, May.
    2. Mary H. Ward & Rena R. Jones & Jean D. Brender & Theo M. De Kok & Peter J. Weyer & Bernard T. Nolan & Cristina M. Villanueva & Simone G. Van Breda, 2018. "Drinking Water Nitrate and Human Health: An Updated Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-31, July.
    3. Cristina Marcillo & Leigh-Anne Krometis & Justin Krometis, 2021. "Approximating Community Water System Service Areas to Explore the Demographics of SDWA Compliance in Virginia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Brett Baden & Douglas Noonan & Rama Mohana Turaga, 2007. "Scales of justice: Is there a geographic bias in environmental equity analysis?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 163-185.
    5. Ann Wolverton, 2023. "Environmental Justice Analysis for EPA Rulemakings: Opportunities and Challenges," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(2), pages 346-353.
    6. repec:plo:pone00:0094628 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Uloma Igara Uche & Sydney Evans & Soren Rundquist & Chris Campbell & Olga V. Naidenko, 2021. "Community-Level Analysis of Drinking Water Data Highlights the Importance of Drinking Water Metrics for the State, Federal Environmental Health Justice Priorities in the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-22, October.
    8. Xun Liu & Hong Liu & Ning Ding, 2020. "Chloramine Disinfection-Induced Nitrification Activities and Their Potential Public Health Risk Indications within Deposits of a Drinking Water Supply System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-10, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bakkensen, Laura A. & Ma, Lala & Muehlenbachs, Lucija & Benitez, Lina, 2024. "Cumulative impacts in environmental justice: Insights from economics and policy," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2024. "Technical Guidance for Assessment Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis," Environmental Economics Guidance Documents 348895, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    3. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2011. "The Political Economy of Environmental Justice," MPRA Paper 101191, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Schoolman, Ethan D. & Ma, Chunbo, 2012. "Migration, class and environmental inequality: Exposure to pollution in China's Jiangsu Province," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 140-151.
    5. Diane Sicotte, 2014. "Diversity and Intersectionality among Environmentally Burdened Communities in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area, USA," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(9), pages 1850-1870, July.
    6. Hausman, Catherine & Stolper, Samuel, 2021. "Inequality, information failures, and air pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    7. Angela DeRidder & Sowjanya Kalluri & Veera Holdai, 2020. "A Retrospective Chart Review Evaluating the Relationship between Cancer Diagnosis and Residential Water Source on the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, USA," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Tianheng Jiang & Maomao Wang & Wei Zhang & Cheng Zhu & Feijuan Wang, 2024. "A Comprehensive Analysis of Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in China: Current Status, Risk Assessment and Management Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Kelly B. Maguire & Glenn Sheriff, 2011. "Quantifying the Distribution of Environmental Outcomes for Regulatory Environmental Justice Analysis," NCEE Working Paper Series 201102, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Apr 2011.
    10. Alvarez, Camila H. & Evans, Clare Rosenfeld, 2021. "Intersectional environmental justice and population health inequalities: A novel approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    11. Mustahsin Aziz & Levan Elbakidze, 2025. "Invisible Barrier: The Impact of Air Quality on Chronic School Absenteeism in the US," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 88(3), pages 655-680, March.
    12. Ortega, Emilio & López, Elena & Monzón, Andrés, 2014. "Territorial cohesion impacts of high-speed rail under different zoning systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 16-24.
    13. Ian D. Buller & Deven M. Patel & Peter J. Weyer & Anna Prizment & Rena R. Jones & Mary H. Ward, 2021. "Ingestion of Nitrate and Nitrite and Risk of Stomach and Other Digestive System Cancers in the Iowa Women’s Health Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-14, June.
    14. Richard Bluhm & Pascal Polonik & Kyle S. Hemes & Luke C. Sanford & Susanne A. Benz & Morgan C. Levy & Katharine L. Ricke & Jennifer A. Burney, 2022. "Disparate air pollution reductions during California’s COVID-19 economic shutdown," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 509-517, June.
    15. Crouse, Dan L. & Ross, Nancy A. & Goldberg, Mark S., 2009. "Double burden of deprivation and high concentrations of ambient air pollution at the neighbourhood scale in Montreal, Canada," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 971-981, September.
    16. Rehana Shrestha & Heike Köckler & Johannes Flacke & Javier Martinez & Martin Van Maarseveen, 2017. "Interactive Knowledge Co-Production and Integration for Healthy Urban Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-21, October.
    17. David M. Konisky, 2009. "Inequities in enforcement? Environmental justice and government performance," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 102-121.
    18. David M. Konisky & Tyler S. Schario, 2010. "Examining Environmental Justice in Facility‐Level Regulatory Enforcement," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(3), pages 835-855, September.
    19. Erixson, Oscar & Granath, Jakob & Hu, Xiao & Öhman, Mattias, 2024. "Toxic Metal Injustice? Socioeconomic status at birth and exposure to airborne pollution," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    20. Arteaga, Julian & Deininger, Klaus, 2025. "Yield Gains from Balancing Fertilizer Use: Evidence from Eastern India," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 361015, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:nceewp:348906. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nepgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.