Counties in US with more socially vulnerable populations have a higher density of natural gas pipelines overall. The findings suggest counties that are more socially vulnerable are also at greater risk of facing water and air pollution, public health and safety issues associated with the pipelines.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Those results seem worthless. Given the map, it’s very clear there was a need to correct for large scale regional disparities (by state, for instance). I don’t think the authors did. It’s also both expected and apparent in at least some parts of the map (California, Florida) that pipelines correlate negatively with urbanization. Again the authors didn’t account for that I have no doubt that richer communities somehow never get the shorter end when it comes to polluting infrastructure, but this study is too sloppy to be useful


It’s almost like they put this infrastructure in undesirable real estate areas, and then low rent residential places were built around them, and “socially vulnerable” people moved to the cheap rent areas. Or they planned to put the infrastructure through the pre-existing low -priced real estate to keep cost down, and there’s no way that more affluent areas would allow the pipelines to be but in their neighborhoods.


Interesting to see such a relationship happening in the US. You could consider this supports the idea that mineral wealth is the worst thing that can happen to a region, as the benefit flows to remote financial capitals and industrial regions while the locals mainly get the upheaval and other externalities.


And the invention of the telephone also correlates inversely with the number of pirates in the world…


“Social vulnerability In its broadest sense, social vulnerability is one dimension of vulnerability to multiple stressors and shocks, including abuse, social exclusion and natural hazards.”