Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: A meta-analysis

Ringquist, Evan J.

doi:10.1002/pam.20088

Cited by 279 publications

(163 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

151

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some authors resort to intuition or theory to express their preferences for unit choices or predictions about the effects of the choice of spatial unit (e.g., Cutter and others 1996, McMaster and others 1997, Hockman and Morris 1998, Sui 1999, Bowen 2001, Mantaay 2002. Ringquist (2005) sees unit of analysis largely as a matter of aggregation bias associated with larger units of analysis, where injustice effects should appear stronger at lower resolution. On the other hand, Dolinoy and Miranda (2004) express the intuition that higher resolution predicts higher exposure concentrations.…”

Section: Maup and Ejmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For examples of this research, see Anderton and others (1994), Glickman (1994, 2004, Bowen and others (1995), Cutter and others (1996), Sui (1999), Sheppard and others (1999), Taquino and others (2002), Dolinoy and Miranda (2004), and Baden and others (2007). In his meta-analysis of EJ studies, Ringquist (2005) identifies unit choice as a major source of contention in the literature; his analysis, however, finds little evidence of systematic aggregation bias. In total, even if the conventional wisdom is that effects get stronger as scale of aggregation increases, the empirical evidence on the matter is quite mixed.…”

Section: Maup and Ejmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there is noticeable noise in this estimate, a typical impact radius of more than a few miles points to an appropriate unit somewhat larger than most tracts and smaller than most counties for a nationwide study of Superfund sites. This follows Glickman (2004) and Ringquist's (2005) recommendation to somehow match researchers' definitions of community to the actual area of environmental impact. Yet picking an aggregated unit (e.g., zip codes) to match a uniform, typical impact size for the hazard encounters problems when the aggregated units vary widely and systematically in size.…”

Section: Sensitivity Of Ej Evidence To the Choice Of Unit Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Superfund, Hedonics, and the Scales of Environmental Justice

Noonan

Turaga

Baden³

2009

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Environmental justice (EJ) is prominent in environmental policy, yet EJ research is plagued by debates over methodological procedures. A well-established economic approach, the hedonic price method, can offer guidance on one contentious aspect of EJ research: the choice of the spatial unit of analysis. Environmental managers charged with preventing or remedying inequities grapple with these framing problems. This paper reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on unit choice in EJ, as well as research employing hedonic pricing to assess the spatial extent of hazardous waste site impacts. The insights from hedonics are demonstrated in a series of EJ analyses for a national inventory of Superfund sites. First, as evidence of injustice exhibits substantial sensitivity to the choice of spatial unit, hedonics suggests some units conform better to Superfund impacts than others. Second, hedonic estimates for a particular site can inform the design of appropriate tests of environmental inequity for that site. Implications for policymakers and practitioners of EJ analyses are discussed.2

show abstract

Section: Maup and Ejmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Maup and Ejmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sensitivity Of Ej Evidence To the Choice Of Unit Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Superfund, Hedonics, and the Scales of Environmental Justice

Noonan

Turaga

Baden³

2009

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The discussion here is necessarily cursory because of the broader focus of this article and the availability of several comprehensive surveys (Bowen 2002, Pearce 2003, Hamilton 2005, and Ringquist 2005. Early studies, which focused mainly on air pollution in the United States, generally found a negative association between environmental risk and income (e.g., Freeman 1972, Zupan 1973, Asch and Seneca 1978, Harrison and Rubinfeld 1978.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Incidence of Pollution Control Policies

Parry¹,

Sigman²,

Walls³

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews theoretical and empirical literature on the household distribution of the costs and benefits of pollution control policies, and ways of integrating distributional issues into environmental cost/benefit analysis. Most studies find that policy costs fall disproportionately on poorer groups, though this is less pronounced when lifetime income is used, and policies affect prices of inputs used pervasively across the economy. The policy instrument itself is also critical; freely allocated emission permits may hurt the poor the most, as they transfer income to shareholders via scarcity rents created by higher prices, while emissions taxes offer opportunities for progressive revenue recycling. And although low-income households appear to bear a disproportionate share of environmental risks, policies that reduce risks are not always progressive, for example, they may alter property values in ways that benefit the wealthy. The review concludes by noting a number of areas where future research is badly needed. AbstractThis paper reviews theoretical and empirical literature on the household distribution of the costs and benefits of pollution control policies, and ways of integrating distributional issues into environmental cost/benefit analysis. Most studies find that policy costs fall disproportionately on poorer groups, though this is less pronounced when lifetime income is used, and policies affect prices of inputs used pervasively across the economy. The policy instrument itself is also critical; freely allocated emission permits may hurt the poor the most, as they transfer income to shareholders via scarcity rents created by higher prices, while emissions taxes offer opportunities for progressive revenue recycling. And although low-income households appear to bear a disproportionate share of environmental risks, policies that reduce risks are not always progressive, for example, they may alter property values in ways that benefit the wealthy. The review concludes by noting a number of areas where future research is badly needed.

show abstract

“…In 1987, a study [26] of landfill sites across the US would find that zip codes with these hazardous sites had, on average, double the percent minority of zip codes without landfills. In a seminal meta-analysis of 49 environmental justice studies between 1995 and 2005, Ringquist [27] concluded that race-based environmental inequality was ubiquitous. Numerous subsequent case studies of urban environmental injustices have found that spatial distribution of pollution hazards and socially vulnerable populations (minority and low income) cluster together in Detroit [28], Los Angeles [29][30][31], New York City [32], Portland [33], St. Louis [34], and Tampa Bay [35].…”

Section: Environmental Inequities and Gentrificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risky Business: Sustainability and Industrial Land Use across Seattle’s Gentrifying Riskscape

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the spatial and temporal trajectories of Seattle's industrial land use restructuring and the shifting riskscape in Seattle, WA, a commonly recognized urban model of sustainability. Drawing on the perspective of sustainability as a conflicted process, this research explored the intersections of urban industrial and nonindustrial land use planning, gentrification, and environmental injustice. In the first part of our research, we combine geographic cluster analysis and longitudinal air toxic emission comparisons to quantitatively investigate socioeconomic changes in Seattle Census block-groups between 1990, 2000, and 2009 coupled with measures of pollution volume and its relative potential risk. Second, we qualitatively examine Seattle's historical land use policies and planning and the growing tension between industrial and nonindustrial land use. The gentrification, green cities, and growth management conflicts embedded within sustainability/livability lead to pollution exposure risk and socioeconomic vulnerability converging in the same areas and reveal one of Seattle's significant environmental challenges. Our mixed-method approach can guide future urban sustainability studies to more effectively examine the connections between land use planning, industrial displacement, and environmental injustice. Our results also help sustainable development practitioners recognize that a more just sustainability in Seattle and beyond will require more planning and policy attention to mitigate obscured industrial land use conflicts. OPEN ACCESS

show abstract

Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: A meta-analysis

Cited by 279 publications

References 28 publications

Superfund, Hedonics, and the Scales of Environmental Justice

Superfund, Hedonics, and the Scales of Environmental Justice

The Incidence of Pollution Control Policies

Risky Business: Sustainability and Industrial Land Use across Seattle’s Gentrifying Riskscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About