Which came first, people or pollution? A review of theory and evidence from longitudinal environmental justice studies

Abstract

A considerable number of quantitative analyses have been conducted in the past several decades that demonstrate the existence of racial and socioeconomic disparities in the distribution of a wide variety of environmental hazards. The vast majority of these have been cross-sectional, snapshot studies employing data on hazardous facilities and population characteristics at only one point in time. Although some limited hypotheses can be tested with cross-sectional data, fully understanding how present-day disparities come about requires longitudinal analyses that examine the demographic characteristics of sites at the time of facility siting and track demographic changes after siting. Relatively few such studies exist and those that do exist have often led to confusing and contradictory findings. In this paper we review the theoretical arguments, methods, findings, and conclusions drawn from existing longitudinal environmental justice studies. Our goal is to make sense of this literature and to identify the direction future research should take in order to resolve confusion and arrive at a clearer understanding of the processes and contributory factors by which present-day racial and socioeconomic disparities in the distribution of environmental hazards have come about. Such understandings also serve as an important step in identifying appropriate and effective societal responses to ameliorate environmental disparities. OPEN ACCESS RECEIVED

Blood cadmium by race/hispanic origin: The role of smoking

“…A substantial body of literature documents that polluting facilities are more likely to be located in areas with a higher proportion of minority residents (Mohai et al, 2009). A recent analysis on siting of commercial hazardous waste facilities in 1991-1995 found that higher percentages of Asian residents, not those of black and Hispanic residents, in the surrounding area were strongly associated with higher likelihood of siting of such facilities, with or without adjustment for socioeconomic characteristics of the surrounding area (Mohai and Saha, 2015). This finding indicates that the observed tendency for non-Hispanic Asians to have the highest blood cadmium among never and former smokers of three racial minority groups could be potentially explained in part by the unequal burden of living near polluting facilities borne by Asians.…”

Health and Environmental Justice Implications of Retiring Two Coal‐Fired Power Plants in the Southern Front Range Region of Colorado

“…Throughout the United States, lower income populations are more likely to live near industrial facilities such as coal-fired power plants (Collins et al, 2016;Mohai et al, 2009;Mohai & Saha, 2015;Schulz et al, 2016). Exposure to environmental pollutants generated by these industrial sources, including ambient air pollution, is inequitably distributed by class and race (Ash et al, 2013;Brown, 1995;Pastor et al, 2005;Zwickl et al, 2014) and may contribute to differences in health outcomes (Adler & Newman, 2002;Apelberg et al, 2005;Collins et al, 2011;Morello-Frosch & Jesdale, 2006;Rice et al, 2014).…”

Disproportionality and Resource‐Based Environmental Inequality: An Analysis of Neighborhood Proximity to Coal Impoundments in Appalachia

“…This study uses cross-sectional data, meaning it provides a statistical "snapshot" of associations rather than examining causality or correlations over time. Quantitative environmental inequality work has largely consisted of cross-sectional work, due to difficulty in obtaining longitudinal data on both hazardous facilities and neighborhood-level social dynamics (Mohai and Saha 2015). 6…”

“…This review focuses on empirical studies of “disparate proximity,” which quantitatively assess whether “members of a specific social group live closer to some set of hazards than we would expect if group members were randomly distributed across residential space” (Downey :355). Disparate proximity studies often analyze the extent to which race or class characterizes communities near hazards in urban areas (for reviews see Brulle and Pellow ; Mohai, Pellow, and Roberts ; Mohai and Saha ; Pellow and Brehm 2013).…”

“…Some studies of environmental inequality use dichotomous variables that measure whether (1) a hazardous facility falls within a geographic unit or (2) a unit of analysis falls within a distance buffer of a facility (Mohai and Saha 2007). But Downey (2006) argues that spatial relationships should be conceptualized with a continuous raw distance variable, rather than relying on specific geographic units and buffers.…”