Industrial pollution and social deprivation: Evidence and complexity in evaluating and responding to environmental inequality

Abstract

The local impacts of industrial pollution can take many forms and, whilst uncertain in their scale, severity and distribution, are widely recognized. The question of who in society potentially experiences these impacts through living near to emission sources has been little explored, at least in the UK. This paper reports on a study carried out for the Environment Agency, which examined the distribution of sites coming within the Industrial Pollution Control (IPC) regime against patterns of deprivation. Our analysis provides evidence of a socially unequal distribution of IPC sites in England, with sites disproportionately located and clustered together in deprived areas and near to deprived populations. In discussing these results we emphasise the methodological limitations of this form of environmental justice analysis and the crucial differences between proximity, risk and impact. We also consider the distinction between inequality and injustice and the difficult policy questions which arise when evaluating evidence of environmental inequality, including potential grounds for policy intervention.

An Index for Assessing Demographic Inequalities in Cumulative Environmental Hazards with Application to Los Angeles, California

“…The concentration index can also be used to assess inequalities in impact from environmental hazards between different social groups. To our knowledge, concentration indices have only been used in one study to assess inequalities in exposure to individual environmental hazards (13), and no index has attempted to characterize inequalities to cumulative environmental hazard.…”

The application of three methods to measure the statistical association between different social groups and the concentration of air pollutants in Montreal: A case of environmental equity

“…It must, for instance, provide sufficient protection for various population groups exposed to such hazards (Perlin et al, 1995). Walker and Bulkeley (2006) have also noted that "an unequal distribution of environmental bads by itself may not necessarily be unjust (Walker et al, 2005)-it is rather the 'fairness' of the processes through which the distribution has occurred and the possibilities which individuals and communities have to avoid or ameliorate risk, which are important" (Walker and Bulkeley, 2006). So the data brought together in the context of this article do not enable us to demonstrate that the situation of inequity existing in regard to low-income households is the result of discriminatory processes leading to environmental injustice.…”

Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning

“…Providing upfront incentives for economically marginalised communities raises the possibility of community bribery (Cotton 2013, Cass, Walker, andDevine-Wright 2010), particularly as economic austerity measures under the Conservative Government shrink revenues for local authorities and create pressure for public sector organisations to seek new and alternative sources of income. Local authority support for the industry then becomes increasingly framed as a solution to existing economic deprivation (Walker et al 2005) and hence is a potentially coercive factor, undermining the autonomous of affected communities under the PPFPE. .…”