The Environmental Inequality Lab

We are a non-partisan research group --- advisory, not advocacy. This distinction is important to maintain credibility and trust. We are providers of information.

Our Focus

We apply a data-driven approach to understanding how our environment shapes economic opportunity and well-being.

There are three core questions we engage with:

1. Who faces environmental risks?
2. Why are some people more exposed than others?
3. What are the consequences of exposure?

The answers to these questions are important because they are critical inputs into helping people.

• You can't solve a problem until it's mapped. Knowing who is at risk defines the scope of a problem.
• One can't hope to solve a problem unless we understand its causes. We need to understand the extent to which exposures are beyond the control or avoidance of individuals and what constraints they face in managing environmental risks. This is necessary to help determine when and how policy interventions may be necessary, and increases the likelihood that solutions are effective.
• Even if we know who is at risk, and what the underlying causes are, there are limited resources available. We need to understand the consequences to know the full costs of exposure and weigh these costs and benefits against competing risks and different policy responses. Without understanding the consequences it is impossible to assess the true need for intervention.

Our Approach

We take a data-driven approach to understanding the answers to these questions. Data allows us to start from a shared reality. Credibility comes from rigor. Relevance comes from engagement with real-world problems. A data-driven approach gives us both.

Truth

What is true?

• Not what feels true.
• Not what we hope is true.
• Not what we can persuade others to believe.
• Empirical “truth” is bounded by what we can measure and infer. It is the best-supported conclusion we can draw from the available evidence. Using the best available data we can say "what is". This is separate from "what ought to be". We advise -- provide information. We don't advocate -- argue what ought to be. By providing information, we provide a shared understanding that allows meaningful debate about "what ought to be"
• Most of our progress comes from figuring out what isn't true.