Environmental Justice: An Analysis of Superfund Sites in Florida

Abstract

In this study we investigate the spatial relationship between Superfund sites and the racial, ethnic, and economic characteristics of the areas surrounding those sites in the state of Florida. Unlike many previous environmental justice studies, we examine census tracts rather than larger aggregates such as counties or zip codes. We also look at the problem of environmental injustice longitudinally by analyzing Census data from 1970, I980, and 1990. Such an analysis not only allows us to detect potential environmental inequality, but also to postulate on the nature and origins of this injustice. Overall, our findings indicate that Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to live near Superfund hazardous waste sites, but income and poverty indicators do not predict the location of sites. The spatial association between race, ethnicity, and Superfund sites is increasing over time, leading us to conclude that the likely cause of much of the recent environmental injustice uncovered in our results stems from indirect, rather than direct, forms of discrimination.Environmental justice (EJ) researchers have focused much of their research on the spatial relationship between race, ethnicity, economics and hazardous waste facilities.(1) However, the study of EJ encompasses more than the analysis of the placement of active waste facilities in minority and poor areas (Bullard 1996). It is also concerned with the social and economic processes that shape racial, ethnic, and economic demographic patterns around existing hazardous waste sites. For this reason, we have chosen to examine the issue of environmental justice by looking at the spatial distribution of Superfund sites. Such an endeavor contributes to the body of EJ research in three ways. First, our analysis helps shed some light on the recent debate concerning the existence of environmental injustice. This debate is most often framed in terms of the presence or absence of a statistical association between race, ethnicity, income, and hazardous waste. For instance, several studies provide evidence that demonstrates that nonWhites and the poor are more likely to live near hazardous waste than are Whites and the more affluent (e.g.

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).…”

Regional variation in environmental inequality: Industrial air toxics exposure in U.S. cities

“…Indeed, some have found no significant income disparities after controlling for race and ethnicity (Perlin et al, 1995;Brooks and Sethi, 1997;Hird and Reese, 1998;Stretesky and Hogan, 1998;Houston et al, 2013). Others have reached the conclusion that income-related measures of socioeconomic status (such as poverty and education) are better predictors (Anderton et al, 1994;Bowen et al, 1995;Brochu et al, 2011) or that hazardous facilities tend to be located disproportionately in white working class neighborhoods (Boone, 2002).…”

Social disparities in health: Disproportionate toxicity proximity in minority communities over a decade

“…(Been 1995;Bolin et al 2002;Downey 1998;Hite 2000;Hockman, and Morris 1998;Krieg 1995;Mohai, and Saha 2006;Pastor, Sadd, and Hipp 2001). This puts those living in such communities at risk for exposures that may be related to numerous diseases and disabilities.The extensive literature studying possible disproportionate proximity among racial and ethnic minority populations to toxic waste largely employs cross-sectional designs and analyses (Anderton et al 1994;Baden, and Coursey 2002;Been 1995;Bolin et al 2002;Downey 1998;Hite 2000;Hockman, and Morris 1998;Krieg 1995;Mohai, and Saha 2006;Pastor, Sadd, and Morello-Frosch 2004;Sadd et al 1999;Stretesky, and Hogan 1998). Furthermore, this literature focusing on the potential for possible disproportionate proximity to hazardous wastes based on race and socioeconomic status yields mixed findings: whereas several studies suggest a positive relationship between the proportion minority in a neighborhood (i.e., usually measured as tracts, a Census Bureau defined unit of approximately 4,000 persons) and the number of toxic waste Disproportionate toxicity proximity 2 sites (Been 1995;Bolin et al 2002;Downey 1998;Hite 2000;Hockman, and Morris 1998;Krieg 1995;Mohai, and Saha 2006;Pastor et al 2001), some studies have not detected such a relationship for African-Americans specifically (Anderton et al 1994;Baden, and Coursey 2002;Sadd et al 1999;Stretesky, and Hogan 1998) or minorities more generally (Bowen et al 1995).…”

“…Furthermore, this literature focusing on the potential for possible disproportionate proximity to hazardous wastes based on race and socioeconomic status yields mixed findings: whereas several studies suggest a positive relationship between the proportion minority in a neighborhood (i.e., usually measured as tracts, a Census Bureau defined unit of approximately 4,000 persons) and the number of toxic waste 2 sites (Been 1995;Bolin et al 2002;Downey 1998;Hite 2000;Hockman, and Morris 1998;Krieg 1995;Mohai, and Saha 2006;Pastor et al 2001), some studies have not detected such a relationship for African-Americans specifically (Anderton et al 1994;Baden, and Coursey 2002;Sadd et al 1999;Stretesky, and Hogan 1998) or minorities more generally (Bowen et al 1995).…”