Locally Undesirable Land Uses in Minority Neighborhoods: Disproportionate Siting or Market Dynamics?

Abstract

The environmental justice movement contends that people of color and the poor are exposed to greater environmental risks than are whites and wealthier individuals. The movement charges that this disparity is due in part to racism and classism in the siting of environmental risks, the promulgation of environmental laws and regulations, the enforcement of environmental laws, and the attention given to the cleanup of polluted areas.' To support the first charge-that the siting of waste dumps, polluting factories, and other locally undesirable land uses (LULUs) has been .racist and classist-advocates for environmental justice have cited more than a dozen studies analyzing the relationship between neighborhoods' socioeconomic characteristics and the number of LULUs they host. The studies demonstrate that those neighborhoods in which LULUs are located have, on average, a higher percentage of racial minorities and are poorer than non-host communities. 2 That research does not, however, establish that the host communities were disproportionately minority or poor at the time the sites were selected. Most 1385 1994] 60. The GAO gives the dates repeated in the text as the dates on which the landfills were "established." The GAO never defined what it meant by "established," but conversations with regulators indicate that the sites began to operate as offsite disposal facilities in those years.

Looking at environmental justice from an environmental health perspective

“…How do we measure progress? Thus, our society finds itself in the awkward position of trying to put environmental justice principles into practice while at the same time debat-ing the meaning of the term and its implications for Ž decision making Greenberg, 1993;Been, 1994;Zimmerman, 1994;Cushman, 1998;Sexton and Zimmerman, . 1999 .…”

US Metropolitan-area Variation in Environmental Inequality Outcomes

“…Researchers have found income and poverty to be consistently associated with hazard presence in the expected direction: as environmental hazard presence increases, incomes decrease and poverty rates increase (Ash and Fetter, 2004;Been, 1994;Charkraborty and Armstrong, 1997;Derezinski et al, 2003;Downey, 2003;Hamilton, 1995;Krieg, 1995;Lester et al, 2001;McMaster et al, 1997;Mohai and Bryant, 1992;Morello-Frosch et al, 2001;Oakes et al, 1996;Ringquist, 1997;Stretesky and Hogan, 1998).…”

“…Although many studies have found strong evidence of environmental racial inequality (Ash and Fetter, 2004;Been, 1994;Downey, 1998Downey, , 2003Hamilton, 1995;Krieg and Faber, 2004;Mohai and Bryant, 1992;Morello-Frosch et al, 2001;Ringquist, 1997;Stretesky and Hogan, 1998;Stretesky and Lynch, 2002), some have found evidence of environmental racial inequality for some minority groups but not others (Brown et al, 1997;Mennis and Jordan, 2005;Pastor et al, 2002;Sadd et al, 1999) and some have found only weak evidence of environmental racial inequality or none at all (Anderton et al 1994a(Anderton et al , 1994bAtlas 2002;Bowen et al 1995;Clark et al, 1995;Derezinski et al, 2003;Oakes et al, 1996;Yandle and Burton, 1996).…”

Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California

“…In addition to enhancing our understanding of environmental inequities (Baden and Coursey, 1997;Been, 1994;Krieg, 1995;Pulido et al, 1996;Yandle and Burton, 1996) 10 , historical research has also problematized racism by asking, what if the people came first? While potentially a fruitful line of inquiry, the narrow conception of racism informing the literature has resulted in challenges to claims of racism: What were the intentions of the responsible parties?…”