Data-Driven Research for Environmental Justice Dr. Paul Mohai Professor School of Natural Resources & Environment University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Warren County, North Carolina, 1982 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1icxh0byjgi African American citizens of Warren County used non-violent civil disobedience to protest the delivery of toxic waste to a local dump.
National Press Club Washington, D.C. March 1987
What is environmental justice? Environmental justice means everyone has the right to a clean, healthy, and safe environment in which to live, work, go to school, and play.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment [ distributive justice ] means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement [ procedural justice ] means that: people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health and their concerns will be considered in the decision making process.
First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit 17 Principles of Environmental Justice Principle 8 - Fair Treatment / Distributive Justice Environmental Justice affirms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy work environment without being forced to choose between an unsafe livelihood and unemployment. It also affirms the right of those who work at home to be free from environmental hazards. Principles 5 & 7 - Meaningful Involvement / Procedural Justice Environmental Justice affirms the fundamental right to political, economic, cultural and environmental self-determination of all peoples. Environmental Justice demands the right to participate as equal partners at every level of decision-making, including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement and evaluation. Principle 9 / Corrective Justice Environmental Justice protects the right of victims of environmental injustice to receive full compensation and reparations for damages as well as quality health care.
Important Questions in EJ Research 1) Do racial and socioeconomic disparities in the distribution of environmental burdens exist? How important are the disparities?
Important Questions in EJ Research 1) Do racial and socioeconomic disparities in the distribution of environmental burdens exist? How important are the disparities? 2) What explains the disparities?
Important Questions in EJ Research 1) Do racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in the distribution of environmental burdens exist? How important are the disparities? 2) What explains the disparities? 3) What are the health, economic, and other quality of life implications of disproportionate environmental burdens?
National Press Club Washington, D.C. March 22, 2007
Table 1 Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics of People Living Near Hazardous Waste Facilities (2000 Census) Race/Ethnicity Within 3 km. Beyond 3 km % People of Color 55.9% 30.0% % African American 20.0% 11.9% % Hispanic 27.0% 12.0% % Asian/Pacific Islander 6.7% 3.6% Socioeconomic Characteristics Poverty Rate 18.3% 12.2% Mean Household Income $48,234 $56,912 Mean. Housing Value $135,510 $159,536
Are present-day disparities the result of: A pattern of disproportionately placing hazardous waste facilities and other locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) in people of color and poor communities? Demographic changes after siting?
Explanations: Disparate Siting Industry seeks to minimize costs of doing business and looks to see where land values are low and where sources of raw materials and industrial labor pools are available. These are where people of color and the poor live. Industry anticipates local opposition ( NIMBYism ) and seeks the path of least resistance. These are not where affluent whites live. Institutionalized discrimination, e.g., past discriminatory zoning may lead to disparate siting of facilities, even if industry is not intending to discriminate.
Explanations: Post-Siting Demographic Change Negative effects of locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) cause affluent whites to move out. People of color and the poor are left behind. Additional people of color and the poor move in because housing becomes more affordable.
Implications Theoretical: What explains present-day racial and socioeconomic disparities in the distribution of hazardous waste facilities and other LULUs? Policy: How much effort should be given to managing the siting process vs. other actions to avoid disparities, e.g, fully informing buyers about risks and eliminating discrimination in the housing market? Political: Who is responsible for the disparities and what role should they play in reducing them?
Methodology Hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are sorted based on how close in time they were sited to each of the following census years: 1970, 1980, and 1990. 3 km circular neighborhoods are constructed around facility locations using GIS and areal apportionment. Demographic disparities are examined within and beyond 3 km of facility locations at the time the facilities were sited. Demographic changes are tracked before and after facility siting up to the 2000 census.
90% Figure 1 - White and Minority Percentages within and beyond 3.0 km of 81 TSDFs Sited from 1966 to 1975 80% % White w/in 3 km 70% % White beyond 3 km 60% % Black w/in 3 km 50% % Black beyond 3 km 40% % Hispanic w/in 3 km 30% % Hispanic beyond 3 km 20% % Asian w/in 3 km 10% % Asian beyond 3 km 0% 1970 1980 1990 2000
90% Figure 2 - White and Minority Percentages within and beyond 3.0 km of 156 TSDFs Sited from 1976 to 1985 80% 70% % White w/in 3 km 60% % White beyond 3 km 50% % Black w/in 3 km 40% % Black beyond 3 km % Hispanic w/in 3 km 30% % Hispanic beyond 3 km 20% 10% % Asian w/in 3 km % Asian beyond 3 km 0% 1970 1980 1990 2000
90% Figure 3 - White and Minority Percentages within and beyond 3.0 km of 84 TSDFs Sited from 1986 to 1995 80% 70% % White w/in 3 km 60% 50% % White beyond 3 km % Black w/in 3 km % Black beyond 3 km 40% % Hispanic w/in 3 km 30% 20% % Hispanic beyond 3 km % Asian w/in 3 km 10% % Asian beyond 3 km 0% 1970 1980 1990 2000
2,500,000 Figure 4 - White and Minority Population Totals within 3.0 km of 81 TSDFs Sited from 1966 to 1975 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 White Population within 3 km Black Population within 3 km 500,000 Hispanic Population within 3 km Asian Population within 3 km 0 1970 1980 1990 2000
2,500,000 Figure 5 - White and Minority Population Totals within 3.0 km of 156 TSDFs Sited from 1976 to 1985 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 White Population within 3 km Black Population within 3 km 500,000 Hispanic Population within 3 km Asian Population within 3 km 0 1970 1980 1990 2000
2,500,000 Figure 6 - White and Minority Population Totals within 3.0 km of 84 TSDFs Sited from 1986 and 1995 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 White Population within 3 km Black Population within 3 km 500,000 Hispanic Population within 3 km Asian Population within 3 km 0 1970 1980 1990 2000
Logistic Regression Results Applying 50% areal containment method to tracts within 3km of TSDF
Summary Present-day demographic disparities in the distribution of hazardous waste TSDFs appear to be largely the result of disparate siting Facilities tend to be sited 1) where racial and ethnic minorities and the poor are concentrated at the time of siting and 2) where their numbers are increasing and whites are leaving Although demographic disparities increase after siting, the changes appear to occur before siting The above patterns tend to support path of least resistance arguments rather than arguments that facilities trigger white move-out and minority move-in
Paths of Least Resistance Why people of color and poor communities? Constrained resources, lack of representation where and when siting decisions get made, lack of political clout Why communities that are undergoing change (i.e., whites moving out, people of color moving in)? Disrupted social bonds/networks, weakened organizations, loss of community leaders, i.e., reduced social capital
Thank You!