A Framework for Equity in Energy and Environmental Engineering

As diversity, equity, and inclusion continue to be among the nation’s most important focus areas, a Georgia Tech researcher has created a framework to help his peers utilize more equitable data in their energy and environmental engineering studies.

One of Joe Bozeman’s core research areas is America’s food consumption habits and how they affect climate change, specifically greenhouse gas emissions. The assistant professor in Georgia Tech’s School of Civil and Environmental Engineering looks at food intake across a number of groups, including socioeconomic status, race, and age. Using that data, he’s able to create models that better inform communities and assist policy makers.

However, the most consistent, thorough data he uses to develop those models are from 2005-2010. Five-year datasets before and after that timeframe aren’t standardized, as all sociodemographic groups are not included. This makes it difficult for Bozeman to draw comparisons that are inclusive of everyone across spatial scales and time periods.

It’s one reason why he and researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Colorado Denver have published a framework and 10-step process to help engineers, scientists, and community members standardize their data related to energy and environmental topics. Their goal is to integrate equity into these fields, a practice Bozeman and his colleagues call systemic equity. By doing so, they hope to create a system that all demographics of groups are included, including age groups, income levels, race, and ethnicity.

The framework and process are outlined in a new paper, published by the journal Environmental Engineering Science

“This is to help stabilize our sociopolitical systems, as well as those within civil and environmental engineering,” said Bozeman, who also has a courtesy appointment in the School of Public Policy in Georgia Tech’s Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts. “If we are not able to manage social and infrastructure dynamics within our country in an equitable way, not only will currently marginalized groups be negatively affected now, but so will marginalized groups of the future.”

Systemic equity, the researchers say, requires the simultaneous and effective administration of three areas: resources, policy, and addressing the cultural needs of systematically marginalized groups. Their framework also provides three categories that represent what happens when equity is only partially met.

• Ostensible equity: when resource and policy needs are met, but cultural needs are inadequate.

• Aspirational equity: when policy and cultural needs are met, but resources are inadequate.

• Exploitational equity: when resource and cultural needs are met, but policies are not.

“We wanted to provide common language and a shared understanding for when equity is ineffectively administered,” said Destenie Nock, an assistant professor of engineering and public policy and civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon. “Using consistent terms will allow researchers in our field to communicate with groups that include academia, practitioners, and community leaders.”

The group’s 10-step process for standardizing sociodemographic data practices is intended to address development, collection, and reporting norms. The team hopes the list will also facilitate systemic equity within energy and environmental life cycle assessment and decision-making.