This paper examines conceptual and methodological issues in the analysis of environmental justice through use of the case of lead‐exposure health risks. Researchers face important obstacles in measuring variable risks among population subgroups. The case of lead exposure, however, illustrates the dramatic potential where adequate data exist for identifying and correcting significant inequities in risk exposure. Despite sharp reductions in the general population's exposure to lead since the 1970s, substantial numbers of minority and low‐income children continue to exhibit unacceptably high blood‐lead levels due primarily to exposure to lead‐based paint. Resolving environmental inequities in this and similar instances requires solid documentation of the risk and better integration of equity issues with other policy demands such as the call for cost‐effective environmental policy.

No abstract

No abstract

Employing Kingdon's model of agenda setting (1984) and Stone's notion of causal stories (1989), this article examines how public concerns about radon and asbestos reached the congressional agenda. Several conclusions about agenda setting and causal stories are offered: First, scientific consensus about health risks was a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for radon and asbestos to achieve agenda status. Second, media involvement and the presence of policy entrepreneurs were critical factors in the agenda setting process. Third, differing incentives within the policy stream (for radon) and the political stream (for asbestos) affected the speed by which agenda setting occurred, as well as the shaping of formal policy.

As environmental protection efforts increasingly focus on land use decisions, local governments face mounting pressures to control development in wetland areas. These pressures are especially strong as citizens and environmental groups recognize the limitations of federal efforts to protect wetlands. Door County, Wisconsin, offers an interesting example of the perils and pitfalls associated with trying to move beyond federal and state wetland regulations. Door County, by adopting wetland districts as part of its county zoning ordinance, created greater protection of wetlands—but at the expense of increasing confusion about the various roles of town, county, state, and federal governments. Although the case reveals a high level of interest to protect wetlands among key stakeholder groups, bureaucratic inertia and political tensions between town and county governments hamper efforts to move beyond the existing program. Most striking is the tenuous nature of partnerships formed in the process of community-based environmental protection.