Reassessing racial and socioeconomic disparities in environmental justice research

Abstract

The number of studies examining racial and socioeconomic disparities in the geographic distribution of environmental hazards and locally unwanted land uses has grown considerably over the past decade. Most studies have found statistically significant racial and socioeconomic disparities associated with hazardous sites. However there is considerable variation in the magnitude of racial and socioeconomic disparities found; indeed, some studies have found none. Uncertainties also exist about the underlying causes of the disparities. Many of these uncertainties can be attributed to the failure of the most widely used method for assessing environmental disparities to adequately account for proximity between the hazard under investigation and nearby residential populations. In this article, we identify the reasons for and consequences of this failure and demonstrate ways of overcoming these shortcomings by using alternate, distance-based methods. Through the application of such methods, we show how assessments about the magnitude and causes of racial and socioeconomic disparities in the distribution of hazardous sites are changed. In addition to research on environmental inequality, we discuss how distance-based methods can be usefully applied to other areas of demographic research that explore the effects of neighborhood context on a range of social outcomes.

Identifying inequitable exposure to toxic air pollution in racialized and low-income neighbourhoods to support pollution prevention

“…Many of these indicators have been used in other environmental justice and inequality studies (e.g. Daniels and Friedman, 1999;Mohai and Saha, 2006;Kearney and Kiros, 2009). Using them here may facilitate cross-jurisdictional comparison of results.…”

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 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).…”

“…Third, we apportion this toxic waste based on the proportion of this buffer within each tract. Adopting this approach is important, as evidence suggests that sites are frequently on the border of tracts and thus realistically affect the health of residents outside their own tract (Mohai, and Saha 2006;Pastor et al 2001). …”