Testing for Environmental Racism: Prejudice, Profits, Political Power?

Abstract

Economic theories offer many explanations for why exposure to environmental risks may vary by race: pure discrimination by polluters or politicians in siting decisions; differences in willingness to pay for environmental amenities linked to income or education levels; and variations in the propensity of communities to engage in collective action to oppose the location of potential polluters. This article tests these hypotheses by focusing on the capacity decisions of commercial hazardous waste facilities. Zip code neighborhoods targeted for capacity expansion in plans for 1987–1992 by commercial hazardous waste facilities had an average non white population of 25 percent, versus 18 percent for those areas without net expansion. Differences in the probability that residents will raise a firm's expected location costs by engaging in collective action to oppose capacity siting offer the best explanation for which neighborhoods are selected for capacity expansions.

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 these explanations are widely cited in the literature, relatively few researchers have attempted to test them (exceptions include Been and Gupta, 1997;Downey, 2005;Hamilton, 1995;Morello-Frosch and Jesdale, 2006;Oakes et al, 1996;Pastor et al, 2001;Shaikh and Loomis, 1999;Yandle and Burton, 1996). 1 Moreover, only two studies that I am aware of have attempted to explain why environmental racial inequality levels vary from one city or region of the country to another (Ash and Fetter, 2004;Brown et al, 1997).…”

“…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).…”

“…Environmental inequality researchers have also offered several explanations for the existence of environmental inequality, arguing that poor and minority neighbourhoods are more likely than other neighbourhoods to house environmental hazards because: poor and minority communities lack the political capacity to keep hazardous facilities out of their neighbourhoods (Hamilton, 1995;Mohai and Bryant, 1992); housing market racism confines minorities to undesirable neighbourhoods shunned by Whites (Bullard, 1993;Godsil, 1991;Mohai and Bryant, 1992;Morello-Frosch and Jesdale, 2006); and housing costs are relatively low in environmentally hazardous neighbourhoods, making them more attractive to lower-income people who are, in turn, disproportionately non-White (Hamilton, 1995;Mohai and Bryant, 1992;Oakes et al, 1996).…”

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

“…Unfortunately, the nature of racism is not one of them. In a review of thirty recent empirical studies, only a handful attempted any substantive discussion of racism itself (Baden and Coursey, 1997;Bullard, 1990;Hamilton, 1995;Krieg, 1995;Pulido et al, 1996;UCC, 1987) 7 , although others have probed the nature of race and racism in general (Bullard, 1994;Goldman, 1996;Pulido, 1996;Szasz and Meuser, 1997;Zimmerman, 1994). Instead, the literature is largely characterized by "common sense" assumptions that reflect uncritical, popular understandings of racism 8 .…”