Environmental Justice

ANRV390-EG34-17 ARI 14 September 2009 9:26

Environmental JusticePaul Mohai,1 David Pellow,2

and J. Timmons Roberts3

1School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,Michigan 48109; email: [email protected] of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455;email: [email protected] for Environmental Studies, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2009. 34:405–30

First published online as a Review in Advance onJuly 28, 2009

The Annual Review of Environment and Resourcesis online at environ.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348

Copyright c© 2009 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

1543-5938/09/1121-0405$20.00

Key Words

disproportionate impact, exposure, inequality, mobilization, pollution,race

AbstractThe article reviews two decades of scholars’ claims that exposures topollution and other environmental risks are unequally distributed byrace and class, examines case studies of environmental justice socialmovements and the history and politics of environmental justice pol-icy making in the United States, and describes the emerging issue ofglobal climate justice. The authors engage the contentious literatureon how to quantitatively measure and document environmental injus-tice, especially the complex problems of having data of very differenttypes and areas (such as zip codes, census tracts, or concentric circles)around polluting facilities or exposed populations. Also considered isthe value of perspectives from critical race theory and ethnic studies formaking sense of these social phenomena. The article concludes with adiscussion of the globalization of the environmental justice movement,discourse, and issues, as well as with some policy implications of findingand understanding environmental justice. One unique feature of thisreview is its breadth and diversity, given the different approaches takenby the three coauthors.

405

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


GAO: U.S. GeneralAccounting Office(now, the U.S. GeneralAccountability Office)

UCC: United Churchof Christ

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4062. THE RISE OF

ENVIRONMENTALJUSTICE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408

3. DISTANCE, COMMUNITYPERCEPTIONS, ANDIMPROVINGMETHODOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4103.1. Race versus Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4103.2. The “Chicken and the Egg”

Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4134. ECONOMIC, SOCIOPOLITICAL,

AND RACIAL EXPLANATIONSOF WHY ENVIRONMENTALINJUSTICES EXIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413

5. CONTEXTUALIZINGENVIRONMENTALINJUSTICE: HISTORICALAND CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 416

6. THE GLOBALIZATION OFENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,THE RISE OF CLIMATEJUSTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418

7. CONCLUSION: NEWDIRECTIONS FORENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE . . . 421

1. INTRODUCTION

To understand why environmental justicematters, one need only remember that themovement fighting environmental racism is theresult of what happens when people fear thattheir lives and health are being disproportion-ately put at risk because of the color of theirskin or the sound of their accent. Environ-mental racism burst onto the national politicaland academic radar in 1982 when civil rightsactivists organized to stop the state of NorthCarolina from dumping 120 million poundsof soil contaminated with polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs) in the county with the high-est proportion of African Americans. WarrenCounty became a symbol of the birth of a

new social movement and of an issue thatmainstream middle-class white environmental-ists had failed to consider, i.e., that people ofcolor and poor communities were facing eco-logical risks far greater than they.

Soon afterward, environmental justice stud-ies emerged as an interdisciplinary body of liter-ature, in which researchers were documentingthe unequal impacts of environmental pollu-tion on different social classes and racial/ethnicgroups. Today, hundreds of studies concludethat, in general, ethnic minorities, indigenouspersons, people of color, and low-income com-munities confront a higher burden of environ-mental exposure from air, water, and soil pollu-tion from industrialization, militarization, andconsumer practices. Known variously as envi-ronmental racism, environmental inequality, orenvironmental injustice, this phenomenon hasalso captured the attention of policy makers.

Thus, a substantial body of literature thatdocuments the existence of environmental in-equalities in the United States emerged (1–3).Early findings were later amplified by a seriesof studies focusing on the location of haz-ardous waste sites, beginning with a study con-ducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office(GAO) (4) in 1983. This study documented thatAfrican American communities in the south-ern United States were playing host to a dis-proportionately high number of waste sites (4).That regional study was followed in 1987 bythe United Church of Christ (UCC) Com-mission for Racial Justice’s groundbreaking na-tional study titled Toxic Wastes and Race in theUnited States (5), which documented the un-equal and discriminatory siting of toxic wastefacilities across the United States. The UCCstudy concluded that race was the most impor-tant factor in predicting where these waste siteswould be located.

Benjamin Chavis, then executive director ofthe Commission for Racial Justice of the UnitedChurch of Christ, first coined and defined theterm environmental racism in 1982 in the fol-lowing manner: “Environmental racism is racialdiscrimination in environmental policy mak-ing, the enforcement of regulations and laws,

406 Mohai · Pellow · Roberts

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


the deliberate targeting of communities of colorfor toxic waste facilities, the official sanctioningof the life-threatening presence of poisons andpollutants in our communities, and the historyof excluding people of color from leadershipof the ecology movements” (6). Thus, environ-mental racism “refers to any policy, practice, ordirective that differentially affects or disadvan-tages (whether intended or unintended) indi-viduals, groups, or communities based on raceor color” (7).

Turning the issue on its head to definethe remedy for environmental racism, RobertBullard (7) defined environmental justice as theprinciple that “all people and communities areentitled to equal protection of environmentaland public health laws and regulations.” In a1999 interview, Bullard described how “Theenvironmental justice movement has basicallyredefined what environmentalism is all about.It basically says that the environment is every-thing: where we live, work, play, go to school, aswell as the physical and natural world. And so wecan’t separate the physical environment fromthe cultural environment. We have to talk aboutmaking sure that justice is integrated through-out all of the stuff that we do” (8).

After years of bureaucratic and legalisticconsideration, the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) definition further elaborateson this principle by defining environmentaljustice as “The fair treatment and meaningfulinvolvement of all people regardless of race,color, national origin, or income with respectto the development, implementation, and en-forcement of environmental laws, regulations,and policies. Fair treatment means that no pop-ulation, due to policy or economic disempow-erment, is forced to bear a disproportionateshare of the negative human health or environ-mental impacts of pollution or environmentalconsequences resulting from industrial, munic-ipal, and commercial operations or the execu-tion of federal, state, local and tribal programsand policies” (9). In spite of sharp changes inU.S. presidential administrations from Clintonto Bush and now Obama, this definition standsas the de facto official policy and legal bar that

environmental justice groups must reach to re-ceive government attention.

Environmental justice claims remain con-tentious for three reasons. First, in its earlyyears, the mainstream environmental move-ment ignored social justice and equality issues,and many critics argue that it still does. Earlywork by scientists and activists concerned aboutenvironmental issues was done with little re-gard to underlying social inequalities that drivedifferential exposures to pollution and did notincorporate voices of people of color and theworking classes in solving them. In fact, thereis still debate among environmentalists aboutwhether they should attempt to address theseissues or should continue campaigning on is-sues they are more able to influence. That is,there is not a consensus among environmental-ists on whether broadening environmentalismto include justice is always a good idea.

Second, documenting the existence of “dis-proportionate impact” on people of color orpoor populations has turned out to not be asimple issue. Because they diverted demandsof environmental justice activists, a few studiesskeptical of environmental justice claims havegained an extremely high level of attention inresearch and policy circles. Dozens of studieshave piled up as debates evolved on the bestways to solve research problems. Because somuch is at stake for policy in how one answersthis question, a substantial portion of this re-view considers this literature.

A third reason environmental justice studiesare controversial is that it is not immediatelyobvious what should be done after an injusticehas been documented: Addressing environmen-tal injustice with public policy could involvecomplex and expensive local, national, or per-haps even global interventions. Solutions, suchas relocation of affected communities, which isso ardently sought by some local environmentaljustice groups, are themselves socially and eco-nomically disruptive, and these solutions rarelysatisfactory in their outcomes. Workplaces pro-tected by better regulations and enforcementof occupational health standards still face plantclosure in the face of globalized production.

www.annualreviews.org • Environmental Justice 407

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Even with agreement on the principle that haz-ards should be reduced for everyone, nearer-term compensation and remediation plans turnout to be very messy. In the United States,at least, these broad discussions of a proac-tive environmental justice policy have barelytaken place. It seems that societies that only re-luctantly admit inequality and racial injusticehave been hesitant to develop plans to solve theproblem.

In this review, we first describe the rise of theidea of environmental justice in the academicliterature, as it developed in fairly close rela-tion with a social movement of the same name.We review some of the key studies concerningthe causes of environmental injustice, focusingon the “chicken or the egg” debate on whetherpeople of color populations or hazardous facil-ities came to a location first. We review somecontentious literature on how to quantitativelymeasure and document environmental injus-tice, especially the complex problems of analyz-ing a wide variety of data, such as postal codes,census tracts, or geographic concentric circles.We review case studies of environmental justicemovements, especially focusing on the insightsthey provide on when these movements tendto win their objectives. We also briefly reviewthe rapidly evolving debate over the justice el-ements of climate change, both within devel-oped nations and between them and the world’spoor nations. Although much of the review has aU.S. focus, the article concludes with a brief dis-cussion of the globalization of the environmen-tal justice movement, discourse and issues, andconsiders some policy implications of exposingand understanding environmental justice.

One unique feature of this review is itsbreadth and diversity, given the different expe-riences and intellectual approaches taken by thethree coauthors. The review attempts to pointreaders to works on the quantitative complex-ity of documenting environmental injustice, oncritical race theories that should be included inany broader conceptual discussion of this issue,on case studies, on the history and politics of en-vironmental justice policy making in the UnitedStates and on international climate justice.

2. THE RISE OFENVIRONMENTALJUSTICE STUDIES

Many environmental justice scholars and ac-tivists point to the Warren County, North Car-olina, protests as launching the beginnings ofthe environmental justice movement. Severalcivil rights organizations, including the South-ern Christian Leadership Conference and theUCC Commission for Racial Justice, providedleadership and support to the demonstrators.The protests gained national media atten-tion and were among the first to raise publicawareness about the environmental concerns ofAfrican Americans and other people of color(6, 10, 11).

The Warren County protests were not onlyimportant because they received national at-tention, but they also triggered subsequentevents that would increase the visibility andmomentum of the environmental justice move-ment. One important consequence of theWarren County protests was that theyprompted the GAO to investigate the racialcomposition of the communities near the fourmajor hazardous waste landfills in the Souththe next year (4). The 1983 GAO study foundthat, in all four cases, the communities aroundthe landfills were disproportionately AfricanAmerican. And in three of the four cases,the communities were predominantly AfricanAmerican. Both the Warren County protestsand the results of the GAO study prompted theUCC Commission for Racial Justice to ask thequestion of whether the regionally dispropor-tionate placement of hazardous waste facilitiesand landfills in the South was part of a nationalpattern. Accordingly, the UCC then sponsoreda study of the racial and socioeconomic compo-sition of communities around hazardous wastesites across the United States (5).

The results of the study were publishedin 1987 in a report entitled Toxic Wastes andRace in the United States (5). The impact ofthis report proved to be profoundly significant.It represented the first national-level study ofthe racial and socioeconomic characteristics of


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


communities most proximate to hazardouswaste sites; it was one of the first studies toemploy sophisticated multivariate statisticaltechniques in the analysis of waste and socialcharacteristics; and the results were compelling.The study found that the average percentageof people of color in zip codes containing atleast one commercial hazardous waste facilitywas double that of zip code areas containingnone, and where two or more facilities werelocated, the average percentage was triple. Fur-thermore, the percentages of people of colorin the zip code proved to be the best predictorof where commercial hazardous waste facilitieswere located—even after controlling in a mul-tivariate statistical analysis for mean householdincomes, mean housing values, quantity of haz-ardous waste generated, and number of aban-doned hazardous waste sites in the zip codes(5).

In 1990, sociologist Bullard published hisnow classic book, Dumping in Dixie (6). This wasthe first major study of environmental racismthat linked hazardous facility siting with histor-ical patterns of spatial segregation in the south-ern United States. Bullard found that commu-nities of color were being deliberately targetedfor the location of society’s unwanted wasteand that these practices had their origins inboth historic and contemporary forms of insti-tutional racism. This study began with Bullard’sresearch on a lawsuit against a waste com-pany accused of discriminatory facility siting inan African American community in Houston,Texas, in 1979. Bullard published research onthis and other cases of environmental racismas early as 1983 (12). That local research cul-minated in the publication of Dumping in Dixie,which may have also been the first study to con-sider the social and psychological effects of en-vironmental racism on local communities.

That same year (1990), sociologists Bryantand Mohai organized the Conference on Raceand the Incidence of Environmental Hazards atthe University of Michigan, bringing togetherresearchers from around the nation studyingracial and socioeconomic disparities in thedistribution of environmental contaminants.

The scientific analyses presented clearly docu-mented and “overwhelmingly corroborated theevidence of the General Accounting Office andthe United Church of Christ reports” (13). TheProceedings of the Conference were forwardedto the EPA and influenced the agency to be-gin its own examination of the evidence andbegin drafting policy proposals. In 1992, theEPA published its findings and recommenda-tions in a report, entitled Environmental Equity:Reducing Risks for All Communities (14).

Since 1990, scholars have produced an ex-tensive and sophisticated literature on the di-mensions of differential environmental risks onthe basis of race and socioeconomic class posi-tion (15, 16). Mohai & Bryant (17) performeda meta-analysis of 16 empirical studies on raceand class disparities in the distribution of en-vironmental hazards, all of which found envi-ronmental disparities that were based on eitherrace or income or both. In six out of nine stud-ies, race was a more important predictor thanincome of where environmental hazards are lo-cated, confirming the UCC’s 1987 findings. Ina summary of 54 separate studies, Brown (18)similarly noted that both race and class weresignificant determinates of proximity to knownand prospective environmental hazards and thetiming and extent of remediation actions. Szasz& Meuser (19) conducted a similar review withsimilar findings in 1997, as did the U.S. Insti-tute of Medicine in 1999 (9). In a more recentreview of the literature regarding differentialexposures to environmental pollution, Evans &Kantrowitz (20) found that significant relation-ships exist between the ethnic and class charac-teristics of a community and levels of exposureto environmental risk. Most recently, Ringquist(21, p. 223) conducted a meta-analysis of 49quantitative studies of racial and socioeconomicdisparities in the distribution of environmen-tal hazards and concluded that “there is ubiqui-tous evidence of environmental inequities basedupon race.”

The second result of the 1990 Michiganmeeting was the creation within the EPA of anOffice of Environmental Equity, later renamedthe Office of Environmental Justice. EPA’s


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 OF FEBRUARY 11,1994

Sec. 1–101. To the greatest extent practicable . . . each Federalagency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mis-sion by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportion-ately high and adverse human health or environmental effects ofits programs, policies, and activities on minority populations andlow-income populations. . . .

Sec. 2–2. Each Federal agency shall conduct its programs,policies, and activities that substantially affect human health orthe environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs,policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons(including populations) from participation in, denying persons(including populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons (in-cluding populations) to discrimination under, such, programs,policies, and activities, because of their race, color, or nationalorigin.

Environmental Equity Workgroup produced areport in 1992, entitled Environmental Equity:Reducing Risks for All Communities (14). The re-port gave further weight and increased publicattention to environmental justice concerns asit represented the first official acknowledgmentby the federal government of the existence ofenvironmental inequalities and the importanceof addressing them. The report was widely dis-tributed and almost immediately prompted theU.S. Congress to begin holding hearings on en-vironmental justice.

Several bills were also introduced in theU.S. Congress and in various state legislatures,and by 1994, public attention on environmentalinjustice had reached a point that President BillClinton issued an executive order (see sidebar,Executive Order 12898, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf ) calling on all the agencies of thefederal government, not just the EPA, to takeenvironmental justice concerns into accountin all rule making. In the meantime, the EPAcontinued to try to develop an implementableenvironmental justice policy, principally byrelying on the Title VI provisions of the 1964Civil Rights Act. By applying Title VI, the

agency needed only to show that an actionby industry or government with regard to apolluting facility would lead to a disparateoutcome rather than show that an actionwas motivated by an intent to discriminate.However, the effectiveness of applying TitleVI to future environmental justice cases waslater cast in doubt with a Supreme Court ruling(Alexander v. Sandoval ) in 2001 (see below),and the general strategy of using legal actionsto achieve justice in cases of environmentalinequality has not fared well (22).

3. DISTANCE, COMMUNITYPERCEPTIONS, AND IMPROVINGMETHODOLOGIES

While many policy makers were moving for-ward on environmental justice issues, therewere significant methodological questions inscholarly circles around two major issues. First,what was the relative weight of environmentaljustice claims based on economic class differ-ences versus race? As mentioned at the outsetof this review, the policy implications of thesekinds of findings are extremely complex, so anydoubt that can be raised has been amplified byinstitutions representing economic and polit-ical interests wishing to avoid addressing theproblem. Second, and equally troublesome, wasthe debate over “which came first.” Did pol-luting industrial facilities move into people ofcolor and working-class neighborhoods? Or didthe people move where the land was cheapest—to those polluted communities that people withthe means to do so avoided? This issue is im-portant both for assigning responsibility foraddressing environmental injustices and foravoiding the “resorting” of working-class andpeople of color populations into areas aroundtoxic facilities because they are the only placesthey can afford to live. We address both thesedebates more extensively in the next sections.

3.1. Race versus Class

Although the vast majority of studies of envi-ronmental inequality conclude that racism is


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


the major driving factor, there has been consid-erable debate in some corners about the degreeto which this phenomenon is a function of racialinequalities or class-based market dynamics (17,23–26). This controversy has become known asthe “race versus class debate.” This debate hasboth sociological and political dimensions. AsMohai (27) has argued, if we want to under-stand the causes of environmental inequality,we need to know what role both race and classplay because disparities have been found alongboth dimensions. Whether racial factors havean added (or interactive) effect with income orvice versa are empirical questions.

To the extent that racial disparities persistwhen socioeconomic factors are controlled sug-gests that social scientists need to better un-derstand what aspects of race (whether relatedto housing discrimination, deliberate target-ing of minority neighborhoods for society’s un-wanted land uses, or other factors) are causallyrelated to the phenomenon of environmen-tal inequality. Similarly, a finding that socioe-conomic disparities persist when race is con-trolled suggests further investigation is neededof the causal links between socioeconomiccharacteristics and environmental inequality.Such an understanding goes beyond simply anacademic understanding of environmental in-equality; it also has implications for politicaland public policy developments. For example,because of the evidence of racial disparities inthe distribution of environmental hazards, theEPA has employed civil rights laws (principallyTitle VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) to helpdevelop and implement environmental justicepolicy. The racial dimensions of environmentalinjustice have also been an important rallyingpoint and driver for the environmental justicemovement as seen in the growth of people ofcolor environmental organizations (28) and theemergence and strengthening of environmentaljustice networks, such as the Indigenous Envi-ronmental Network, the Black EnvironmentalJustice Network, the Asian and Pacific Envi-ronmental Network, and the Southwest Net-work for Economic and Environmental Justice(representing primarily Latino communities).

TSDF: treatment,storage, and disposalfacility

Despite the mounting evidence from theUCC study and the early reviews, contrary ev-idence began to emerge in the early 1990s.The first serious challenge to the UCC find-ings came from Anderton et al. (23), who re-ported in the influential journal Demographyresults contrary to those of the UCC. Specifi-cally, they found few racial disparities in the dis-tribution hazardous waste treatment, storage,and disposal facilities (TSDFs), even when con-trolling for regional variation. Socioeconomicdisparities were also found to be weak. The bestpredictor of the location of hazardous wasteTSDFs tended to be the percentage of peopleemployed in manufacturing occupations. Theresearchers argued that the principal reason forthe differences in their findings from those ofthe UCC lay in the use of different units ofanalysis. The UCC study used zip code areas,whereas Anderton et al. used census tracts. Theresearchers argued that because census tractsare smaller geographic units than zip code areas,they are less subject to ecological fallacy. Thatis, relationships found at a larger geographicscale may not exist at a smaller geographic scale.

Been (29) and Mohai (30) responded by ob-serving that there were additional importantdifferences in the methodologies between theAnderton et al. and UCC studies than simplydifferences in the selection of the geographicunits of analysis. Both recognized that the com-parison populations employed in the UCC andAnderton et al. studies were also constructeddifferently. Specifically, Anderton et al. did notconsider rural areas in their analyses, but theUCC study did. In addition, the UCC studyincluded all metropolitan areas in their study,whether or not the metropolitan area includeda hazardous waste TSDF. The Anderton et al.study excluded metropolitan areas not alreadycontaining a TSDF, arguing that metropolitanareas already not containing such facilities werenot likely suited for them in the first place.Both Been and Mohai questioned this assump-tion. In a subsequent empirical analysis, Mohai(27) found that Anderton et al.’s principal in-dicator of industrial activity, percent employedin manufacturing, was found to be statistically


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


indistinguishable between metropolitan areascontaining TSFS and those that do not. Andsupporting the UCC case, the best predictorof which metropolitan areas contain hazardouswaste TSDFs and which do not was found to bethe minority percentages of the metropolitanareas. The result is that both Been and Mohaihave concluded that Anderton et al.’s results donot refute the UCC study’s findings.

The early debates about the evidence usedin these studies sparked much interest in con-ducting further quantitative research on racialand socioeconomic disparities in the distribu-tion of environmental hazards. Much of this re-search tended to rely on a method that Mohai &Saha (31) subsequently referred to as the “unit-hazard coincidence” method. In this approach,researchers select some geographic unit, suchas census tracts or zip code areas, determinewhich units contain the hazard of interest andwhich do not, and then compare the demo-graphic characteristics of those containing thehazard with those not containing it. Virtuallyall national-level environmental justice studieshave employed this approach (5, 23, 29, 32–45).

However, Mohai & Saha (31) demonstratedthat the unit-hazard coincidence method does arelatively poor job in determining the locationof the residential populations living near haz-ardous sites. This is because such sites are of-ten located near the boundary of the host unit.However, rather than considering these neigh-boring tracts as part of the host neighborhood,these tracts are lumped together in the com-parison group of nonhost tracts and consideredto be similar to other nonhost tracts, some ofwhich may be hundreds or thousands of milesfrom the hazardous facility. When neighboringtracts are grouped with host tracts proper usingdistance-based methods, the concentrations ofpoor people and people of color are found to bemuch greater than what the previous nationalstudies have shown, including the original UCCstudy (31, 46, 47).

The key features these methods have incommon are that they (a) take into account theprecise point locations of hazardous sites (notjust whether a site is located generally within

or is coincident with a geographic unit) and(b) consider as part of the host neighborhoodall other units (not just the host units of censustracts or zip codes proper) that are within somedetermined distance from the sites. Ringquist(21) also found in his recent review that studiesemploying geographic information systems ap-proaches (i.e., distance-based approaches) tendto find greater racial and socioeconomic dispar-ities in the distribution of environmental haz-ards than those employing census tracts or zipcode areas alone (i.e., the unit-hazard coinci-dence approach). Distance-based methods havealso tended to lead to a finding of strongerindependent race effects than income effectsin predicting the locations of environmentalhazards in multivariate analyses than has theconventional unit-hazard coincidence method(21, 31, 47).

In addition to improvements in proximity-based analyses, advances have also been madein employing risk-based approaches in environ-mental justice studies. Rather than examiningproximity to the sources of environmentalhazards, such as distances to industrial facilitiesor hazardous waste sites, risk-based approachesexamine the dispersion of the pollution riskitself to see where pollution burdens fall.Where pollution burdens fall geographicallyis typically estimated by mathematical modelsthat take into account the quantity and typeof toxic emissions released, timing of releases,stack heights, exit velocities, wind speeds anddirections, and other factors. In using suchapproaches, Chakraborty & Armstrong (48)found significant racial disparities in the dis-persion of air pollution fallout in Des Moines,Iowa. However, applying similar approachesto an analysis of pollution fallout in Allegheny,Pennsylvania, Glickman (49) did not findracial minorities to be more greatly impactedthan whites. More recently, Ash & Fetter (50)conducted a national-level study that exam-ined the geographic dispersion of air toxicsrisks modeled from the EPA’s Toxic ReleaseInventory (TRI) and found significant racialdisparities. Morello-Frosch & Jesdale (51)recently examined cancer risk estimated from


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


air pollution data in the National Air ToxicAssessment. These data take into account airpollution risk from both industrial and mobilesources. Morello-Frosch and Jesdale found thatmetropolitan areas that were the most raciallysegregated were also the metropolitan areaswith the greatest cancer risk from air pollution.Even whites living in segregated metropolitanareas were found to face greater cancer risk thanwhites living in metropolitan areas with littlesegregation. Nevertheless, African Americansand Latinos were found to face the greatest can-cer risk in the segregated metropolitan areas.

Although the number of risk-based envi-ronmental justice studies has been growing,these are likely to complement rather thanreplace proximity-based studies. This is be-cause proximity-based studies are useful in ex-amining where people are located in relationto physical structures that may generate envi-ronmental justice concerns beyond health out-comes. For example, communities are oftenconcerned about the noises, odors, traffic con-gestion, risks to children, visual blight, fallingproperty values, and social stigmatization as-sociated with polluting industrial facilities andhazardous waste sites. Furthermore, proxim-ity data in a sense represent “hard” data, inwhich the physical presence of noxious facili-ties is subject to minimal ambiguity. Risk anal-yses are often hampered with incomplete dataand imperfect modeling assumptions. Never-theless, there is increasing sophistication in themethods employed in both types of approaches,and the results obtained from them have helpedto advance our understanding of the exis-tence, magnitude, and causes of environmentalinequalities.

3.2. The “Chicken and the Egg”Debate

On the chicken and the egg question of whetherhazardous facilities or poor/minority popula-tions came first, research on environmental in-equality has moved toward longitudinal analysisof the creation of environmental inequalities.In one important study, Pastor et al. (52) show

that, over a 30-year period, the correspondencebetween polluting facilities and minority com-munities in the Los Angeles basin was basedprimarily on a pattern of disparate siting of fa-cilities in existing communities of color, ratherthan on geographic shifts in these populations.In other words, toxic facilities tend to be locatedin particularly vulnerable communities ratherthan the other way around, contrary to the “mi-nority move-in hypothesis.” These communi-ties were being selected systematically for thelocation of noxious facilities.

In another recent study spanning a 50-yearperiod in the state of Michigan, Saha & Mohai(53) similarly found a distinct pattern of locat-ing hazardous waste TSDFs in neighborhoodsdisproportionately composed of working-classand people of color residents. Theirs is one ofthe few studies to examine facility siting before1970. They found little evidence to indicate thatdisparities in facility siting began before 1970but that such disparities increased significantlyduring the 1970s and 1980s. They attribute thisphenomenon to rising public concerns aboutenvironmental hazards during this period, es-pecially about hazardous wastes after the enor-mous publicity given the Love Canal crisis inthe late 1970s, and the greater success of whitecommunities at keeping noxious land uses frombeing sited in their neighborhoods. As a re-sult of this success, locally unwanted land uses(LULUs) became increasingly diverted topolitically more vulnerable low-income andpeople of color communities, corroboratingBullard & Wright’s (54) earlier argument that“not in my backyard” (NIMBY) increasinglybecame “place in blacks’ backyards” (PIBBY).

4. ECONOMIC,SOCIOPOLITICAL,AND RACIAL EXPLANATIONSOF WHY ENVIRONMENTALINJUSTICES EXIST

Despite the current difficulties in pinning downthe precise causes of present-day environmen-tal disparities, several major arguments haveemerged. Although going by slightly different


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


names or labels, these can be categorized as eco-nomic explanations, sociopolitical explanations,and racial discrimination explanations. Thesehave been outlined previously by Mohai & Saha(46, 55) and Saha & Mohai (53). That is, af-ter documenting the existence of disparate im-pacts, there is the sociological question aboutwhy such disparities exist so broadly.

Economic explanations are sometimes referredas market dynamics explanations (56). Theprincipal argument here is that industry isnot intentionally discriminating against eitherracial and ethnic minorities or the poor. In-dustry is simply trying to maximize profits andhence reduce the cost of doing business. Thus,when siting a new facility, industry seeks toplace facilities where land is cheap and whereindustrial labor pools and sources of materialsare nearby. These may be coincidentally wherepoor people live, and because racial and eth-nic minorities are disproportionately poor, theplaces where industry sites a new facility mayalso be coincidentally where people of colorlive. This is the case, for example, along theMississippi River where old plantation lots rep-resent large pieces of land with access to deepwater ports, oil pipelines, and salt brine (11).These places are also bordered by tiny townsmade up of shacks where ex-slaves were able tosettle after being emancipated during the CivilWar.

Furthermore, the racial and socioeconomiccomposition of the nearby neighborhoods maysignificantly change after the facility has beensited, further aggravating racial and socioeco-nomic disparities around such facilities. Thisis because the facility may introduce negativeimpacts on the quality of life of the local resi-dents. Such impacts might include visual blight,noise, noxious odors, traffic congestion, fear ofhealth impacts, social stigmatization, and oth-ers. As a result, some residents will want to leavethe neighborhood. Those most able to leave arethe more affluent residents who have the finan-cial means to move to more environmentallydesirable, and hence more expensive, neighbor-hoods. Poorer residents without such means areleft behind. The neighborhood thus becomes

poorer, and because white residents on averagehave higher incomes and wealth, the propor-tion of people of color in the neighborhood willalso increase. At the same time, the flight fromthe neighborhood will depress property valuesand hence make housing in the neighborhoodmore affordable. Thus, even more poor peopleand people of color begin to move in, furtherincreasing their concentration around the facil-ity and further aggravating the disparities in thedistribution of such facilities at large.

Sociopolitical explanations involve the argu-ment that industry and government seek thepath of least resistance when siting new haz-ardous waste or polluting industrial facilities(54). Industry is aware that many communitieswill actively oppose the placing of such facilitiesin them. Because industry and government donot want to generate controversy or experiencedelay in moving ahead with siting plans, theyseek to avoid communities that are most capa-ble of mounting an effective opposition. Thesecommunities are those with abundant resourcesand political clout and also tend to be afflu-ent, white, and well connected. Poor communi-ties and communities of color become an easiertarget because they have fewer resources andare not well represented in the decision mak-ing of industry and government. Saha & Mohai(53) have argued that NIMBYism grew in the1970s and 1980s as people’s awareness and con-cerns about toxic hazards grew. Because af-fluent white communities were more able tomount opposition to the placement of newhazardous facilities, such facilities became in-creasingly placed in poor and people of colorcommunities. Thus, over time, racial and so-cioeconomic disparities in the distribution ofsuch facilities have widened. That industry andgovernment are cognizant of and concernedabout public opposition to the siting of nox-ious facilities has been verified in several well-publicized cases (22).

Bullard (6) found that those communitiesmost capable of mounting effective collectiveresistance tend to be better educated, havegreater levels of income, and fewer peopleof color. In other words, aside from various


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


tactics, strategies, and political resources thatbesieged communities can muster, the best pre-dictor of success is pre-existing social capital.This finding is troubling considering the re-search on the relationship between toxic facil-ity siting and social capital, which finds that alack of “pre-existing racially based social capi-tal” places communities of color at a dispropor-tionately higher environmental risk than whitecommunities (52). Communities with low lev-els of voting behavior, home ownership, wealth,and disposable income are more vulnerableto high concentrations of polluting facilitiesthan other communities. Unfortunately, thesecharacteristics are often highly correlated withrace.

Two theories not originally focused on en-vironmental justice concerns might be catego-rized as somewhere in between the economicand sociopolitical explanations of unjust envi-ronmental exposures. German social theoristBeck (57–59) argued that late modernity hasbrought an exponential increase in the pro-duction and use of hazardous chemical sub-stances. Despite eventually affecting everyone,Beck points out that the politics of the distribu-tion of environmental degradation favor morepowerful communities over others, which, ofcourse, is the basis of the environmental justicethesis. The treadmill of production model ofSchnaiberg and colleagues argues that capitalisteconomies continuously create ecological andsocial harm owing to the inherent drive to makea profit (60–64). Capitalist market economiesrequire increasing extraction of materials andenergy from natural systems, so when resourcesare limited, the treadmill searches for alterna-tive sources, which are often in indigenous andminority communities. The treadmill of pro-duction prioritizes market value uses of ecosys-tems, despite the fact that other ecosystemuses are biological and social necessities for allclasses of people. According to Schnaiberg andcolleagues, at the roots of these conflicts arepower struggles over access to social, economic,and environmental resources, located primarilyin class differences between the wealthy and theworkers.

Racial discrimination explanations expandbeyond those discussed above. It has beenwidely debated whether prejudicial attitudes orracial animus play a role in siting decisions (65)or in the lack of responsiveness to the envi-ronmental concerns of racial and ethnic mi-norities (47). Furthermore, even though overtlyracist attitudes and actions may be a thing ofthe past in public policy circles, current deci-sions that may seem racially neutral on theirface may nevertheless have discriminatory out-comes because of past discriminatory actions.Cole & Foster (22), for example, discuss thepresent-day effects of zoning decisions made inthe early 1900s that were intended to segregateblacks from whites and place industrial zones inAfrican American communities. Even thoughpresent-day siting decisions may be based ona rational desire to put new facilities in areasthat have been zoned industrial, these neverthe-less will wind up disproportionally in people ofcolor communities because of past discrimina-tory decisions about where to put the industrialzones (11). This is an example of what Feagin& Feagin (66) refer to as side-effect discrimina-tion, i.e., discrimination in one area (zoning de-cisions) leading to discriminatory outcomes inanother (siting decisions), even though the lat-ter involves no discriminatory intent. And stillother scholars (65, 67, 68) argue that presentday racism and the quest for white privilege stillmotivates policy decisions that result in raciallyunequal outcomes.

Race can also play a role in the way en-vironmental burdens are distributed throughhousing segregation (69). The economic expla-nations discussed above argue that present-daydisparities around hazardous sites occur partlybecause affluent (and hence white) people canmore easily move away from contaminatedareas, whereas the poor (and hence manypeople of color) cannot because of constrainedfinancial means. These explanations do nottake into account the further constraints onpeople of color’s options to move because ofhousing discrimination.

Racism should not be reduced entirely tomaterial explanations, however, because it is


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


also a cultural, juridical, and psychologicalphenomenon, and scholarship from the fieldsof ethnic studies and critical race theory areuseful in that regard. In his “black trash” thesis,Mills (70) draws on philosophical and historicaltexts to connect white racism to an ideologicalframework that links images of people ofcolor (specifically people of African descent)with barbarism, filth, dirt, and pollution. Thisalso occurs within societies, such as in India,where the Dalits or “untouchables” are viewedas a form of contamination. According toMills, many whites in the United States andglobally view African peoples as a form ofsocial contamination, hence making it thatmuch easier to legitimately locate industrialwaste and factory pollution in their nations andsegregated neighborhoods. The link betweennon-European peoples and symbols associatedwith nature, such as danger, disease, filth,primitive, and savage, is common throughoutEuropean history, literature, and contempo-rary politics in the global North, whether oneis speaking of Africans, African Americans,indigenous peoples, Asians, Latin Americans,or the Roma of Europe. Like Mills, environ-mental philosopher Higgins (71) identifies thecultural sources of these meanings concerningracial and social pollution, in that minorityenvironments are seen as “appropriatelypolluted” spaces. Racial segregation at workand at home facilitates the production of en-vironmental injustice because “environmentalpollution is fittingly relegated to ‘sociallypolluted spaces.’” Mills and Higgins thereforeprovide a framework for a broader culturallogic and prevalence of environmental racism.

Of course, the above three categories of ex-planations (economic, sociopolitical, and racialdiscrimination) are not necessarily mutually ex-clusive or easy to disentangle. For example,even if people of color communities are targetedfor the siting of new locally unwanted land usesbecause they are seen as less likely to be able tomount an effective opposition (i.e., are amongthe paths of least resistance), are not the mo-tives of industry also economic (i.e., to reducethe costs associated with delay and possible legal

battles)? At the same time, if industry and gov-ernment consciously use the racial or socioeco-nomic characteristics of communities (see, e.g.,Reference 72) in making decisions about whereto site new locally unwanted facilities, do notsuch decisions begin to raise questions of intent,even if the motives are economic? When thereis no intent to discriminate in the siting process,but housing discrimination traps racial and eth-nic minorities in polluted neighborhoods, areenvironmental disparities then nevertheless stillan outcome of racial discrimination? Moreover,market forces and class inequalities are neverrace neutral, revealing what critical race the-orists have termed intersectionality, which is thefact that race, class, gender, and other social cat-egories are always linked in the experiences ofindividuals and groups (73). Despite the diffi-culties of sorting out and pinning down the fac-tors that may result in racial and socioeconomicdisparities in the distribution of environmen-tal hazards, the above explanations, at the veryleast, help identify the range of possible factorsthat may account for disparate outcomes.

Regarding policy implications, knowingwhat explains present disparities in the distribu-tion of hazardous and polluting sites may helppolicy makers (a) determine whether more at-tention should be given to managing the sitingprocess; or (b) if disparities are inevitable be-cause poor people and people of color tend torelocate where such sites are located, whethermore attention should be focused on eliminat-ing discrimination in the housing market andbetter informing home buyers of the environ-mental risks in neighborhoods. Regarding po-litical implications, better understanding of thefactors that result in environmental disparitiesmay help identify who is most responsible forsuch disparities and what role they should playin reducing them.

5. CONTEXTUALIZINGENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE:HISTORICAL AND CASE STUDIES

In this section, we consider historical andcase studies that give a more contextual


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


understanding of why environmental inequal-ities arise in the first place. We also considerthe role of the environmental justice movementas a political force that might challenge thisphenomenon.

Taylor (74, 75) presents perhaps the mosthistorically comprehensive and conceptuallyinclusive analysis of environmental injusticein communities and workplaces in the UnitedStates. She covers the period from 1820 to 1995and investigates policies that produce social andenvironmental inequalities among people ofcolor, women, and working-class populations,as well as resistance movements during that pe-riod in a way that challenges traditional con-ceptual frameworks that narrowly define bothenvironmental concerns and the scope of so-cial justice movements. This is a broad overviewthat seeks to place environmental justice stud-ies in its proper historical context. The study isalso of critical importance because it includesthe workplace as a site of environmental injus-tice and of organizing against this oppression.

In another historical place-based studyof the case of the U.S. Steel Corporation’ssprawling ironworks in Gary, Indiana, historianHurley (76) found that Latinos and AfricanAmericans faced disproportionately high levelsof exposure to environmental toxins both onthe job at the steel plant and in their neighbor-hoods, as a result of local racial discrimination.Class and race led to stark urban politicalbattles. Hurley’s book set a new standard forintegrating the history of community andworkplace issues in an historical study throughan environmental justice lens. Pellow & Park(77) found similar results in their researchon Latino and Asian immigrant workers andresidents in Silicon Valley.

In a book of four case studies, Roberts &Toffolon-Weiss (11) argue that the primarycause of environmental inequalities in the stateof Louisiana is an alliance among business, thestate, and other “growth machine” intereststo create a good business climate that favorsprivate profits over public and environmentalhealth. In cases of Native American, AfricanAmerican, whites and other groups fighting for

clean air and safe neighborhoods, the authorsargue that the growth machine was the majordriving force working against the cause of envi-ronmental justice. The idea of a growth ma-chine comes from Logan & Molotch’s bookUrban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place(78). Contrary to earlier theories of urban soci-ology, land parcels in cities are not simply emptyfields awaiting human action. Rather, land islinked to specific interests—commercial, sen-timental, and psychological—that shape cities.Critically important in this process of shap-ing cities were the real estate interests of thosewhose properties gain value when growth takesplace. Dominant players in urban, national, andinternational politics share a consensus that un-limited economic growth is a positive force forsociety. They may have varied interests, net-works, and foci, but the one thing they allreach consensus on is the need for unrelent-ing growth. They are united also in the beliefin value-free development—the belief that thefree market alone should determine land use.Logan & Molotch argue exactly the opposite:that often growth is not good for all. And in fact,growth is never distributed or enjoyed evenlyacross populations. Logan & Molotch arguethat in the United States the growth machineideology is so strongly ingrained in our culturethat resistance against it is often seen as an illog-ical and disruptive effort to interfere with thenatural forces of the market place. Roberts &Toffolon-Weiss reveal that Louisiana’s uniqueracial and industrial history intersected to pro-duce forms of environmental injustice perhapsat the extreme of the U.S. continuum, suggest-ing the need for further historical and placed-based scholarship on this topic that mightcomplement the existing quantitative method-ological research.

In their study of the state of Massachusetts,Faber & Krieg (79) found that poor andworking-class whites and people of color facegreater toxic threats than middle-class and af-fluent whites. These threats include hazardouswaste sites, landfills and waste transfer stations,polluting industrial facilities, power plants,incinerators, and measures of cumulative


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


environmental hazards. The authors found thata combination of white flight and middle-classflight to the suburbs, the rise in the numberof people of color in the central cities, and in-creases in illegal dumping and the siting of in-cinerators produced environmental inequalitiesin that state.

In studies of Torrance and Los Angeles,California, Pulido et al. (68) demonstrated that,as a result of racially biased urban planningduring the last century, Chicanos faced thehighest levels of exposure to industrial pollu-tion in those cities when compared to Anglos.Similarly, Boone & Modarres (80) argue that,in Commerce, California, although hazardousindustry was sited in close proximity to Latinopopulations, zoning and urban planning prac-tices had as much, if not more, to do withindustrial location decisions as demographicsand racial politics. As they state, “demograph-ics alone are not responsible for the con-centration of manufacturing in Commerce”(80). They emphasize the importance of place-specific analysis to determine the root causes ofenvironmental inequalities.

On that note, Houston, Texas, is famousfor its lack of zoning laws. Despite or becauseof this absence of zoning, Bullard (6) demon-strates that all of the city of Houston’s munic-ipal landfills are located in African Americanneighborhoods. In this case, he maintainsthat there was de facto zoning by Houston’spowerful white city leaders, who viewed AfricanAmerican neighborhoods as appropriate sitesfor waste disposal. Bullard concludes thatracism is a fundamental organizing principle ofpolitics and planning in America.

Communities of color and working-classneighborhoods have hardly been quiescent inthe face of environmental injustice. But whendo environmental justice movements arise andunder what conditions do they succeed or fail?Studies of environmental protest movementshave tended to focus on the cases that garnergreatest media exposure and those in which par-ticipants are successful. Therefore, it is difficultto say with certainty which factors lead bothto the mobilization of local people against an

unwanted land use and to that group’s success infighting it. However, there are some importantinsights we can draw from some of the substan-tial number of case studies that have now beenconducted on environmental justice struggles.Obviously, these cases answer different ques-tions than the quantitative approaches, and/orcomplement those findings.

For those working-class communities fight-ing waste incinerators, Walsh et al. (81) foundthat it was far more difficult for communi-ties to close existing facilities than it was tostop new ones. Roberts & Toffolon-Weiss (11)found this pattern applied in Louisiana as well.Gaining the support of outside groups, suchas Greenpeace or the Louisiana EnvironmentalAction Network, which had experience fight-ing these sorts of battles, was important indrawing out these struggles and gaining presscoverage. However, this was not sufficient towin, as the authors found with the AgricultureStreet Landfill and Grand Bois oilfield wastedumping cases. Another key factor that cor-responded to environmental justice movementsuccess was whether communities had securedrepresentation by public interest law clinics andfirms, rather than private injury tort lawyers.Earthjustice (previously named the Sierra ClubLegal Defense Fund) was a key part of the coali-tion that successfully blocked the Louisiana En-ergy Services uranium enrichment facility inHomer, Louisiana. The Tulane University En-vironmental Law Clinic was also critical for thesuccessful effort to stop the Japanese Shin-EtsuChemical Company from building a major fa-cility in the majority African American town ofConvent, Louisiana (82).

6. THE GLOBALIZATION OFENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,THE RISE OF CLIMATE JUSTICE

Shortly after the movement for environmen-tal justice in the United States made headlinesin the early 1980s, activists and policy mak-ers began to take notice of similar patternsof environmental inequality around the globe.Scholars of environmental justice studies and


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


international relations have begun to tacklethe question of global environmental inequal-ity/racism. Two levels of inequality are being in-creasingly cited: transnational and global (83).Extraction-based corporations are expandingoperations to the remotest corners of the world,but the people affected there are sometimesable to utilize electronic communications togain wider attention to their plight. Transna-tional solidarity work provides new approachesto formalize the gains of environmental jus-tice movements and avoid the flight of firmsfrom environmental and worker health regu-lations at home (84). Meanwhile, some hazardssuch as climate change are truly global, worsen-ing existing inequalities in terms of who causedand suffers from the problem, and who has theresources to cope with its mounting impacts(83, 85).

Much of the existing research on the inter-nationalization of risks comes from legal schol-ars wrestling with problems of international anddomestic law on the waste trade—specificallythe legislation and treaties enacted to controlthese activities (86–89). The legal literaturecenters mainly on one major pressing question:To what extent can domestic regulation andinternational agreements control or minimizethe waste trade? A growing body of social sci-ence research has begun to pay attention to thesocial and economic driving forces behind thewaste trade as well (90–93). If one makes onlya cursory examination of the nations importingwaste (legally or illegally) into their borders, itimmediately becomes clear that they are stateson the geopolitical and economic periphery, na-tions that have endured colonization in the lastseveral centuries, and they are most often na-tions populated by a majority of people of color.Other studies observe that communities in theGlobal South—including and especially indige-nous communities—are targeted for pollutingindustrial facilities and extractive industries andare fighting back (94).

The case of the United States-Mexico Bor-der reveals a host of concerns associated withthe globalization of environmental injustice.In 1994, the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, deep-ening the linkages among the economies of theUnited States, Mexico, and Canada. Trade of-ficials and politicians promised a cautious pub-lic in all three nations that jobs would be cre-ated and economic prosperity would prevailand that environmental problems would be ad-dressed through sustainable development (95).Instead, since NAFTA went into effect, hun-dreds of thousands of jobs left the United Statesfor points South, and eventually, some 240,000jobs left Mexico for other nations with evenlower labor costs (96).

On the environmental front, NAFTA’sCommission for Environmental Cooperation(CEC) has the power to document environmen-tal injustices but has no enforcement authorityto address these problems. Since 1994, trucktraffic from Tijuana, Mexico, to San Diego,California, has increased 60%, pumping car-cinogenic diesel fumes into the air on both sidesof the border. Although the U.S. Toxic Re-lease Inventory is certainly an imperfect system,Mexico’s version of the registry is far worse; asof 2004, only 5% of companies required to re-port their industrial toxic discharges were do-ing so. Moreover, with the cancellation of theU.S. Haztraks program in 1993, today there isno functioning system that monitors the trans-portation of toxic substances across the bor-der (97). In Mexico’s Colonia Chilpancingocommunity, a United States-owned abandonedbattery recycling factory left 23,000 tons oftoxics on site. NAFTA’s CEC deemed thisproperty a “grave risk to human health” buthad no authority to enforce a cleanup action.Only when grassroots activists and social move-ment groups came together to raise publicawareness and demand action did the Mexicangovernment begin to clean up the area. Thiswas the result of cross-border, binationalcommunity-based organizing by social move-ments in the United States and Mexico. Soalthough NAFTA is a glaring example of theglobalization of environmental injustice, thegrassroots response on the border region re-flects the globalization of environmental justicemovements.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


The electronics or information technologyindustry has been widely hailed as a founda-tion of the new high-tech economy and a sectorwhere people can create and enjoy untold eco-nomic prosperity. Industry executives and manyelected officials have also declared electronicsan ecologically pristine and sustainable sector.

Unfortunately, the evidence does not sup-port these claims. Low wages and significantoccupational health hazards characterize manyproduction-level jobs in the industry, as unionsare virtually absent, and many workers con-front up to hundreds of chemicals on any work-station. The electronics industry is heavily re-liant upon industrial chemicals and producesextraordinary volumes of waste and wastewa-ter. Inside and outside the workplace, we findevidence of environmental inequality, as manyemployees in the most hazardous jobs are immi-grants, female, and people of color; in addition,the toxics discharges outside electronics plantsare strongly correlated spatially with class andrace (77).

These patterns hold true for the disposal ofelectronic consumer products as well. Whenthe tons of obsolete electronics consumer goodsare disposed of each year in wealthy nations, this“e-waste” is often shipped to urban areas and ru-ral villages across Asia, Africa, and Latin Amer-ica, where residents and workers disassemblethem for sale in new manufacturing processesor where they are simply dumped as waste. Be-cause each computer contains several poundsof highly toxic materials, this practice createsa massive transfer of hazardous waste productsfrom North to South, and it is responsible forimpacting public health and the integrity ofwatersheds in numerous nations in Asia, Africa,and Latin America. There is a sophisticatedtransnational movement effort that has cometogether to document these problems, andactivists have had success at changing corporateenvironmental policies and passing local, na-tional, and international legislation to addressthe worst dimensions of the e-waste crisis (98).

Recently, these networks have succeeded inpushing several states in the United States, theEuropean Union, and companies, such as Dell,

Apple, HP, and Compaq, to enact policies totake back electronics at the products’ end of lifeto recycle them and prevent their export and,in some cases, to reduce the use of toxic inputsin production processes. To better coordinatetransnational movement activities concerningthe electronics industry, activists from aroundthe world convened to launch the InternationalCampaign for Responsible Technology in 2002.

In the early 2000s, the term environmen-tal justice began to be applied to issues outsideof the United States. In some cases, the termwas explicitly and consciously adopted with thehelp of environmental justice leaders, such as ata major conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in2001 when several environmental sociologistswere among the Americans brought in specif-ically to share insights with Latin Americanactivists and academics from U.S. experiences(99). Organizers of the conference, with fund-ing from the Ford Foundation, saw the term en-vironmental justice as a way to weave togetherthe interests of two major factions in Brazilianmovements: bioenvironmentalism/nature con-servationists, on the one hand, and those work-ing on social justice, equity, and citizenship, onthe other. The meeting and additional orga-nizing activities and academic work have ledto the use of the term environmental injusticeto describe the location of major hydroelectricprojects, urban toxins and waste, and importedhazardous industries in poor, ethnic minorityrural regions, and indigenous communities inLatin America. The term has also been appliedto the issue of climate change in the region. Itis safe to say that environmental justice has be-come a global concern and a global movement(100).

Climate change reflects and increases socialinequality in a series of ways, including whosuffers most its consequences, who caused theproblem, who is expected to act, and who hasthe resources to do so. Several studies havedocumented this inequality at the internationallevel (83, 101–103), but a growing numberof groups and scholars are showing injusticewithin nations between who is vulnerable toclimate disasters by race, ethnicity, class and


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


gender (e.g., Reference 104). Adaptive/resilience resources are clearly unequally dis-tributed by old social divisions, as was shownso clearly in the United States by the aftermathof Hurricane Katrina.

A whole new sociology of Katrina hasemerged, reflected in a collection of essays pub-lished by the Social Sciences Research Coun-cil and recent research authored and edited byBullard and his colleagues, among others (105–107). This work included research focusing oninjustice in who lived in neighborhoods proneto flooding, who got evacuated during the flood,experiences during evacuation, whose neigh-borhoods have been rebuilt or given over tothe swamp, who is represented in decision mak-ing in the process of rebuilding New Orleansand other locations around the nation, and soon. Major questions for this review are whetherKatrina represents the tip of a very big icebergof climate disasters, which divide humans byrace and class, and what can be learned fromthis (truly dreadful) experience. The storm canbe seen as raising national and international ap-preciation for the existence of savage inequali-ties that leave communities very unequally ex-posed to environmental risks. What remainsunanswered is whether addressing the issues ofclimate change and the need for environmentalreform will come to include the need to addressthese deep social inequalities.

A climate justice movement is emerging thatseeks to assure that these kinds of lessons are in-deed learned and incorporated into social policyat the national and international levels. Severalstrands of the movement exist, and new fla-vors seem to be emerging. One group emergedfrom the Durban conference on racism in 2001and led to the creation and strengthening ofseveral international environmental justice andhuman rights networks. Another group thatemerged is the Environmental Justice and Cli-mate Change network, which was launchedin the run-up to the Poznan Conference ofthe Parties of the UN Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change of that year. This net-work split explicitly from the major ClimateAction Network, opposing carbon trading in

favor of a carbon charge proposal. In 2009, theWest Harlem-Environmental Action, Inc. con-vened a major conference on climate justice,putting forward a platform for action in theUnited States.

One difficulty and source of confusion is thatthere are differences in the uses of the term cli-mate justice between European users and thosemore common among U.S.-based environmen-tal justice activists. One root of the split is a dif-ferent approach on whether one is talking aboutinternational dimensions of inequality and theflow of resources between states that a climatetreaty might require, or simply raising the issuesof environmental justice communities aroundthe world that are suffering from climate im-pacts. A related problem is the continuing useof the term by law scholars, implying that anylegal issues raised by climate change are issuesof climate justice. This same issue plagues in-terdisciplinary and international work on en-vironmental justice, which many law scholarsand practitioners claim describes their work asa whole.

7. CONCLUSION: NEWDIRECTIONS FORENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The U.S. environmental justice movement waslargely stalled for the eight years of PresidentGeorge W. Bush’s administration. A SupremeCourt ruling (Alexander v. Sandoval ) in 2001 re-versed earlier court interpretations of Title VI,making EPA’s ability to rely on Title VI for en-vironmental justice policy less certain. Indeed,environmental justice policy at the federal levelhas not made much progress in the past 10 years(47). Greater optimism is seen for PresidentBarack H. Obama’s administration, especially inlight of greater Democratic majorities in bothhouses of Congress and the appointment ofthe first African American EPA director, LisaJackson.

In spite of the difficult climate during theBush administration, attention to environmen-tal justice was raised in 2007 by hearings heldin the U.S. Senate, focusing on EPA’s handling


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEPOLICY PROPOSALS

Key Policy Proposals from Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty 1987–2007: Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle Environmental Racism in theUnited States, which the authors submitted to the Senate Subcom-mittee on Superfund and Environmental Health during hearingsheld July 2007.

1. Hold Congressional Hearings on EPA Response to Contamina-tion in EJ [environmental justice] Communities;

2. Pass a National Environmental Justice Act Codifying the Environ-mental Justice Executive Order 12898;

3. Provide a Legislative “Fix” for Title VI of the Civil Rights Actof 1964 that was gutted by the 2001 Alexander v. Sandoval U.S.Supreme Court decision that requires intent, rather than disparateimpact, to prove discrimination;

4. Require Assessments of Cumulative Pollution Burdens in FacilityPermitting;

5. Require Safety Buffers in Facility Permitting;6. Protect and Enhance Community and Worker Right-to-Know;7. Enact Legislation Promoting Clean Production and Waste Re-

duction;8. Adopt Green Procurement Policies and Clean Production Tax

Policies;9. Reinstate the Superfund tax;

10. Establish Tax Increment Finance (TIP) Funds to Promote Envi-ronmental Justice-Driven Community Development.

of environmental justice matters, and by the re-lease earlier that year of an update of the UCCreport, entitled Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty1987–2007: Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle En-vironmental Racism in the United States (47). Byusing updated information on hazardous wastefacility locations, demographic data from the2000 Census, and newer and better methodsof determining where facilities and people arelocated, this report found that the poor andpeople of color are more heavily concentratedaround such facilities than what previous studiesfound, including the 1987 UCC Report. In fact,the 2007 report found that people of color makeup the majority (56%) of those living within3.0 km of where hazardous waste facilities arelocated, in spite of being only 30% of the na-tional population (47). And where two or morefacilities are clustered, people of color makeup 69%. In addition to the updated analysisof the distribution of hazardous waste facilities,

Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty also contained anumber of important recommendations for ad-dressing environmental injustices in the UnitedStates. Ten key environmental justice policieswere identified for implementation by Bullardand colleagues (47) (see the Environmental Jus-tice Policy Proposals sidebar) and forwardedto Senator Hillary Clinton, who chaired the2007 Senate hearings. This letter was signedby over 100 environmental justice leaders, or-ganizations, and academics.

Because of the stalemate at the federal levelin the United States, considerable efforts havebeen made at the local levels to develop envi-ronmental justice policies. Currently 41 stateshave some policy on environmental justice, andCalifornia has enacted an environmental jus-tice law. In spite of these efforts, many believethat federal and state actions have not achievedmeasurable results (47). Nevertheless, the envi-ronmental justice movement has raised publicattention and spurred some government ef-forts on this issue. This review shows how aca-demic interest has increased rapidly in the pasttwo decades with sponsored research and peer-reviewed publications appearing in a wide rangeof disciplines, including sociology, law, geogra-phy, urban planning, public health, economics,political science, and others. Many collegesand universities offer courses and even wholeprograms in environmental justice studies. Al-though many observers believe that the prob-lems associated with disparate environmentalburdens will not be easily solved, and Foreman(108) argued that environmental justice wouldquickly become a distant memory, the growthin the numbers of grassroots organizations, aca-demic institutions, and government agenciesworking on environmental justice have createdenough critical mass and momentum that itdoes not seem likely attention to this issue willfade any time soon.

Looking ahead on new trends in researchon environmental justice, we expect continuingstudies in most or all the issues discussed above,and two exciting new lines need special atten-tion. Although health concerns related to indus-trial pollution and hazardous wastes often are


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


the trigger that mobilizes communities in en-vironmental justice controversies, surprisinglylittle research has been conducted to determinethe extent that racial and socioeconomic dispar-ities in environmental exposures are related toracial and socioeconomic disparities in healthand mortality (20, 56, 109). Although quanti-tative environmental justice studies have exam-ined racial and socioeconomic disparities in thedistribution of environmental hazards and epi-demiological studies have examined the healtheffects of the environmental contaminants, thetwo bodies of research have not yet been effec-tively brought together. Evans & Kantrowitz(20) identify many of the challenges of doing so.First, they point out that data on environmen-tal exposures broken out by race and incomeare still very thin for many settings, includ-ing the workplace, schools, and neighborhoods.Second, even if such data were adequate, isolat-ing the effects of environmental factors is verydifficult as the populations that are exposed arealso affected by a myriad of other suboptimalconditions, e.g., poor housing, poor schools,lack of access to health care, insufficient nu-tritious food, lack of outdoor recreational op-portunities, neighborhood crime, psychologi-cal stressors, and others. In addition, there iscurrently a lack of sufficient longitudinal datathat would allow for an examination of howchanges in environmental exposures over timeare linked to health outcomes over time as wellas how such changes are moderated by raceand income. Evans & Kantrowitz point out thatmuch more effort needs to be done to collectboth environmental exposure data and healthdata by race and income. More also needs to bedone to examine temporal links and determinehow race and socioeconomic effects on healthare mediated by exposures to multiple environ-mental stressors.

On the basis of environmental justice/socialgreen ideology that environmental problemswere at their root based on human oppressionof other humans, for years people have actedon the assumption that achieving social justicewould move us down the road to environmen-tal sustainability. This is certainly not turning

out to be an automatic relationship, and thetwo can sometimes be quite different endeav-ors. Therefore, a second and challenging newline of research is being opened by Agyeman inquestioning how justice and sustainability actu-ally might fit together. His chapter in his 2003coedited volume Just Sustainabilities: Develop-ment in an Unequal World (110) and his 2006book Sustainable Communities and the Challengeof Environmental Justice (111) begin the develop-ment of a new theoretical perspective. The JustSustainability Paradigm is “the need to ensurea better quality of life for all, now and into thefuture, in a just and equitable manner, whileliving within the limits of supporting ecosys-tems” (110). He argues that the Just Sustain-ability Paradigm broadly “requires sustainabil-ity to take on a redistributive function,” and lo-cal groups taking this approach “are operatingwithin an EJ [environmental justice] frameworkbut are also exploring the wider and emergingterrain of sustainable development.” Returningto the core point, these two different demandsmust both be kept in the forefront, and onealone will not lead us to enduring solutions.

As mentioned in the last section, there arenow numerous transnational social movementorganizations concerned with environmentaljustice and human rights issues focused on arange of state and industrial sectors. Taken to-gether, these global organizations and networksconstitute a formidable presence at interna-tional treaty negotiations; within corporateshareholder meetings; in the halls of congresses,parliaments, and city councils; and within localcommunity settings. Even so, they are onlya part of the broader global movement forenvironmental justice. Arguably, the most im-portant components of that movement are thedomestic local, regional, and national organi-zations in the various nations and communitiesin which scores of environmental justice battlesrage every day. Those groups provide thefrontline participants in the struggles and locallegitimacy for transnational social movementsand their networks. Together, the numerouslocal grassroots organizations and their collab-orating global networks produce and maintain a


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Participants of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, held October 24–27, 1991,adopted the following principles:

1. Environmental Justice affirms the sacredness of Mother Earth, ecological unity and the interdependence ofall species, and the right to be free from ecological destruction.

2. Environmental Justice demands that public policy be based on mutual respect and justice for all peoples,free from any form of discrimination or bias.

3. Environmental Justice mandates the right to ethical, balanced and responsible uses of land and renewableresources in the interest of a sustainable planet for humans and other living things.

4. Environmental Justice calls for universal protection from nuclear testing, extraction, production and disposalof toxic/hazardous wastes and poisons and nuclear testing that threaten the fundamental right to clean air,land, water, and food.

5. Environmental Justice affirms the fundamental right to political, economic, cultural and environmentalself-determination of all peoples.

6. Environmental Justice demands the cessation of the production of all toxins, hazardous wastes, and ra-dioactive materials, and that all past and current producers be held strictly accountable to the people fordetoxification and the containment at the point of production.

7. Environmental Justice demands the right to participate as equal partners at every level of decision-making,including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement and evaluation.

8. Environmental Justice affirms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy work environment without beingforced to choose between an unsafe livelihood and unemployment. It also affirms the right of those whowork at home to be free from environmental hazards.

9. Environmental Justice protects the right of victims of environmental injustice to receive full compensationand reparations for damages as well as quality health care.

10. Environmental Justice considers governmental acts of environmental injustice a violation of internationallaw, the Universal Declaration On Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on Genocide.

11. Environmental Justice must recognize a special legal and natural relationship of Native Peoples to theU.S. government through treaties, agreements, compacts, and covenants affirming sovereignty and self-determination.

12. Environmental Justice affirms the need for urban and rural ecological policies to clean up and rebuild ourcities and rural areas in balance with nature, honoring the cultural integrity of all our communities, andprovided fair access for all to the full range of resources.

13. Environmental Justice calls for the strict enforcement of principles of informed consent, and a halt to thetesting of experimental reproductive and medical procedures and vaccinations on people of color.

14. Environmental Justice opposes the destructive operations of multi-national corporations.15. Environmental Justice opposes military occupation, repression and exploitation of lands, peoples and cul-

tures, and other life forms.16. Environmental Justice calls for the education of present and future generations, which emphasizes social

and environmental issues, based on our experience and an appreciation of our diverse cultural perspectives.17. Environmental Justice requires that we, as individuals, make personal and consumer choices to consume as

little of Mother Earth’s resources and to produce as little waste as possible; and make the conscious decisionto challenge and reprioritize our lifestyles to insure the health of the natural world for present and futuregenerations.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


critical part of the transnational public sphere(84).

Today, environmental justice and humanrights movements are merging together as aglobal force for social change and democra-tization. Activists in Europe, the Americas,Africa, and Asia are collaborating to challengesocially and ecologically harmful state andcorporate polices concerning hydroelectricpower, incineration, and mineral extraction,for example, while offering alternatives forsustainability and social justice. Articulatinga vision of global justice and human rights,the Principles of Environmental Justice(see box)—drafted in 1991 at the First NationalPeople of Color Environmental LeadershipSummit in Washington, DC—contained anumber of key demands in this vein. Theprinciples declared rights “to be free fromecological destruction”; to be “free from anyform of discrimination or bias”; the “right toclean air, land, water, and food”; the “right topolitical, economic, cultural and environmentalself-determination of all peoples”; and the right“to a safe and healthy work environment.”

Importantly, principle 10 argues that govern-mental acts of environmental injustice are viola-tions of international law and of “the UniversalDeclaration On Human Rights, and the UnitedNations Convention on Genocide.” Takenseparately and together, these principles speakimpressively to a body of international law andhuman rights that has been in development forsix decades (112). More importantly, in orderfor these principles to become reality, states andcorporations would have to undergo dramatictransformations that would embrace democ-racy as standard operating procedure. Thework of activists in the environmental justiceand human rights movements has become quitesophisticated at combating global environ-mental inequalities through the engagementof a range of institutions, thus developing anemerging form of global citizenship that mightultimately lead to greater democratization ofour global society. In their turn, transnationalenvironmental justice movements may bringnew external levers and emerging global normsback into the United States, whence thismovement and scholarly field began.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. Environmental justice scholarship and the movement by the same name were inspiredinitially by protests in Warren County, North Carolina.

2. Hundreds of studies have now documented unequal exposures by race, ethnicity, andeconomic class.

3. Disproportionate impact of hazards on minority communities can occur regardless ofracist intent.

4. Unequal enforcement and unequal attention by agencies and corporations in cleaningup affected neighborhoods or relocating residents also are part of the problem.

5. Explanations for the existence of environmental injustice include economic inequality,sociopolitical exclusion, and racial discrimination.

6. Globalization has created new patterns of exposures and opportunities for environmentaljustice movement building.

7. Climate change has been shown to create unequal impacts on communities of color,indigenous peoples, the poor, and on developing countries.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


FUTURE ISSUES

1. Research is needed to tie racial disparities in environmental burdens to racial disparitiesin health. The same is true of economic inequalities.

2. Research is needed to examine the promises and pitfalls associated with the globalizationof environmental justice struggles.

3. Research is needed to explore the environmental justice implications of climate changeimpacts and proposed solutions.

4. The potential role of green technologies and green businesses in reducing exposures andunequal exposures to risks are unknown.

5. There is a critical need for understanding the role of efforts to achieve just sustainability—the combination of social justice and sustainability in policy making.

6. Policy options in response to documented environmental injustice are underdeveloped.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings thatmight be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Brulle RJ, Pellow DN. 2006. Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequalities. Annu.Rev. Public Health 27:103–24

2. Lave LB, Seskin EP. 1970. Air pollution and human health. Science 169:7283. Burch WR. 1976. The peregrine falcon and the urban poor: some sociological interrelations. In Human

Ecology: An Environmental Approach, ed. P Richerson, J McEvoy III, pp. 308–16. North Scituate, MA:Duxbury

4. US Gen. Account. Off. 1983. Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial andEconomic Status of Surrounding Communities. Washington, DC: US Gov. Print. Off.

5. Chavis BF, Lee C. 1987. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. New York: United Church Christ6. Bullard RD. 2000. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.

3rd ed.7. Bullard RD. 1996. Symposium: the legacy of American apartheid and environmental racism. St. John’s

J. Leg. Comment. 9:445–748. Schweizer E. 1999. Environmental justice: an interview with Robert Bullard. Earth First! J. July.

http://www.ejnet.org/ej/bullard.html9. US Inst. Med. 1999: Toward Environmental Justice: Research, Education, and Health Policy Needs.

Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.10. Pellow DN, Brulle RJ. 2005. Power, Justice, and the Environment: A Critical Appraisal of the Environmental

Justice Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press11. Roberts JT, Toffolon-Weiss M. 2001. Chronicles from the Environmental Justice Frontline. Cambridge,

MA/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press12. Bullard RD. 1983. Solid waste sites and the Black Houston community. Sociol. Inq. 53:273–8813. Bryant B, Mohai P, eds. 1992. Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse.

Boulder, CO: Westview14. US Environ. Prot. Agency (EPA). 1992. Environmental Equity: Reducing Risks for All Communities.

Washington, DC: EPA15. Bryant B. 1995. Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions. Washington, DC: Island


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/17735852_Air_Pollution_and_Human_Health?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241825472_The_Legacy_of_American_Apartheid_and_Environmental_Racism?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241825472_The_Legacy_of_American_Apartheid_and_Environmental_Racism?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11715508_Solid_Waste_Sites_and_the_Black_Houston_Community?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7245683_Environmental_Justice_Human_Health_and_Environmental_Inequalities?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7245683_Environmental_Justice_Human_Health_and_Environmental_Inequalities?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==


16. Mohai P. 1996. Environmental justice or analytic justice? Soc. Sci. Q. 77:500–717. Mohai P, Bryant B. 1992. Environmental racism: reviewing the evidence. See Ref. 13, pp. 163–7618. Brown P. 1995. Race, class and environmental health: a review and systemization of the literature.

Environ. Res. 69:15–3019. Szasz A, Meuser M. 1997. Environmental inequalities: literature review and proposals for new directions

in research and theory. Curr. Sociol. 45:99–12020. Evans GW, Kantrowitz E. 2002. Socioeconomic status and health: the potential role of environmental

risk exposure. Annu. Rev. Public Health 23:303–3121. Ringquist EJ. 2005. Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: a meta-analysis. J. Policy Anal. Manag.

24:223–4722. Cole LW, Foster SR. 2001. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental

Justice Movement. New York/London: N. Y. Univ. Press23. Anderton DL, Anderson AB, Oakes M, Fraser MR. 1994. Environmental equity: the demographics of

dumping. Demography 31:229–4824. Been V. 1994. Locally undesirable land uses in minority neighborhoods: disproportionate siting or

market dynamics? Yale Law J. 103:1383–42225. Downey L. 1998. Environmental injustice: Is race or income a better predictor? Soc. Sci. Q. 79:766–7826. Downey L. 2006. Environmental racial inequality in Detroit. Soc. Forc. 85:771–9627. Mohai P. 2008. Equity and the environmental justice debate. Res. Soc. Probl. Public Policy 15:21–4928. Taylor DE. 2000. The rise of the environmental justice paradigm. Am. Behav. Sci. 43:508–8029. Been V. 1995. Analyzing evidence of environmental justice. J. Land Use Law 11:1–3630. Mohai P. 1995. The demographics of dumping revisited: examining the impact of alternate methodolo-

gies in environmental justice research. Va. Environ. Law J. 14:615–5231. Mohai P, Saha R. 2006. Reassessing racial and socioeconomic disparities in environmental justice re-

search. Demography 43:383–9932. Anderton DL, Oakes JM, Egan KL. 1997. Environmental equity in Superfund: demographics of the

discovery and prioritization of abandoned toxic sites. Eval. Rev. 21:3–2633. Daniels G, Friedman S. 1999. Spatial inequality and the distribution of industrial toxic releases: evidence

from the 1990 TRI. Soc. Sci. Q. 80:244–6234. Davidson P, Anderton DL. 2000. The demographics of dumping II: survey of the distribution of

hazardous materials handlers. Demography 37:461–6635. Goldman BA, Fitton L. 1994. Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited: An Update of the 1987 Report on the Racial

and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. Washington, DC: Cent. PolicyAltern.

36. Greenberg M. 1993. Proving environmental inequity in siting locally unwanted land uses. Risk: IssuesHealth Saf. 4:235–52

37. Hamilton JT. 1993. Politics and social costs: estimating the impact of collective action on hazardouswaste sites. Rand J. Econ. 24:101–25

38. Hamilton JT. 1995. Testing for environmental racism: prejudice, profits, political power? J. Policy Anal.Manag. 14:107–32

39. Hird JA. 1993. Environmental policy and equity: the case of Superfund. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 12:323–4340. Hird JA, Reese M. 1998. The distribution of environmental quality: an empirical analysis. Soc. Sci. Q.

79:694–71641. Lester JP, Allen DW, Hill KM. 2001. Environmental Injustice in the United States: Myths and Realities.

Boulder, CO: Westview42. Oakes JM, Anderton DL, Anderson AB. 1996. A longitudinal analysis of environmental equity in com-

munities with hazardous waste facilities. Soc. Sci. Res. 25:125–4843. Perlin SR, Setzer W, Creason J, Sexton K. 1995. Distribution of industrial air emissions by income and

race in the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29:69–8044. Ringquist EJ. 1997. Equity and the distribution of environmental risk: the case of TRI facilities. Soc. Sci.

Q. 78:811–2945. Zimmerman R. 1993. Social equity and environmental risk. Risk Anal. 13:649–66


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246078195_Environmental_Racism_Reviewing_the_Evidence?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15609628_Race_Class_and_Environmental_Health_A_Review_and_Systematization_of_the_Literature?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15609628_Race_Class_and_Environmental_Health_A_Review_and_Systematization_of_the_Literature?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249680227_Environmental_Inequalities_Literature_Review_and_Proposals_for_New_Directions_in_Research_and_Theory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249680227_Environmental_Inequalities_Literature_Review_and_Proposals_for_New_Directions_in_Research_and_Theory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11454451_Socioeconomic_Status_and_Health_The_Potential_Role_of_Environmental_Risk_Exposure?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11454451_Socioeconomic_Status_and_Health_The_Potential_Role_of_Environmental_Risk_Exposure?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15273422_Environmental_Equity_The_Demographics_of_Dumping?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15273422_Environmental_Equity_The_Demographics_of_Dumping?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271697510_Locally_Undesirable_Land_Uses_in_Minority_Neighborhoods_Disproportionate_Siting_or_Market_Dynamics?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271697510_Locally_Undesirable_Land_Uses_in_Minority_Neighborhoods_Disproportionate_Siting_or_Market_Dynamics?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246077469_Environmental_Injustice_Is_Race_Or_Income_a_Better_Predictor?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51602092_Environmental_Racial_Inequality_in_Detroit?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235303227_Equity_and_the_environmental_justice_debate?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247602799_Spatial_Inequality_and_the_Distribution_of_Industrial_Toxic_Releases_Evidence_From_The_1990_TRI?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247602799_Spatial_Inequality_and_the_Distribution_of_Industrial_Toxic_Releases_Evidence_From_The_1990_TRI?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227647034_Environmental_Policy_and_Equity_The_Case_of_Superfund?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247840118_The_Distribution_of_Environmental_Quality_An_Empirical_Analysis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247840118_The_Distribution_of_Environmental_Quality_An_Empirical_Analysis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12240388_Demographics_of_Dumping_II_A_National_Environmental_Equity_Survey_and_the_Distribution_of_Hazardous_Materials_Handlers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12240388_Demographics_of_Dumping_II_A_National_Environmental_Equity_Survey_and_the_Distribution_of_Hazardous_Materials_Handlers?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283920863_Analyzing_evidence_of_environmental_justice?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285323079_Proving_environmental_inequity_in_siting_locally_unwanted_land_uses?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285323079_Proving_environmental_inequity_in_siting_locally_unwanted_land_uses?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24048827_Politics_and_Social_Costs_Estimating_the_Impact_of_Collective_Action_on_Hazardous_Waste_Facilities?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24048827_Politics_and_Social_Costs_Estimating_the_Impact_of_Collective_Action_on_Hazardous_Waste_Facilities?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227648443_Assessing_Evidence_of_Environmental_Inequities_A_Meta-Analysis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227648443_Assessing_Evidence_of_Environmental_Inequities_A_Meta-Analysis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227647239_Testing_for_Environmental_Racism_Prejudice_Profits_Political_Power?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227647239_Testing_for_Environmental_Racism_Prejudice_Profits_Political_Power?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297506575_Equity_and_the_distribution_of_environmental_risk_The_case_of_TRI_facilities?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297506575_Equity_and_the_distribution_of_environmental_risk_The_case_of_TRI_facilities?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244957953_A_Longitudinal_Analysis_of_Environmental_Equity_in_Hazardous_Waste_Facilities?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244957953_A_Longitudinal_Analysis_of_Environmental_Equity_in_Hazardous_Waste_Facilities?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==


46. Mohai P, Saha R. 2007. Racial inequality in the distribution of hazardous waste: a national-level reassess-ment. Soc. Probl. 54:343–70

47. Bullard RD, Mohai P, Saha R, Wright B. 2007. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty 1987–2007: GrassrootsStruggles to Dismantle Environmental Racism in the United States. Cleveland, OH: United Church ChristJustice Witness Minist.

48. Chakraborty J, Armstrong MP. 1997. Exploring the use of buffer analysis for the identification of im-pacted areas in environmental equity assessment. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 24:145–57

49. Glickman T. 1994. Measuring environmental equity with GIS. Renew. Resour. J. 12:17–2150. Ash M, Fetter TR. 2004. Who lives on the wrong side of the environmental tracks? Evidence from the

EPA’s Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators model. Soc. Sci. Q. 85:441–6251. Morello-Frosch R, Jesdale B. 2006. Separate and unequal: residential segregation and air quality in the

metropolitan US. Environ. Health Perspect. 114:386–9452. Pastor M, Sadd J, Hipp J. 2001. Which came first? Toxic facilities, minority move-in, and environmental

justice. J. Urban Aff. 23:1–2153. Saha R, Mohai P. 2005. Historical context and hazardous waste facility siting: understanding temporal

patterns in Michigan. Soc. Probl. 52:618–4854. Bullard RD, Wright BH. 1987. Environmentalism and the politics of equity: emergent trends in the

black community. Mid-Am. Rev. Sociol. 12:21–3755. Mohai P, Saha R. 1994. Environmental injustice: examining alternative explanations. Presented at 1994

Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., Aug., Los Angeles, Calif.56. Ringquist EJ. 2003. Environmental justice: normative concerns and empirical evidence. In Environmental

Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, ed. NJ Vig, ME Kraft, pp. 249–73. Washington, DC:CQ Press. 5th ed.

57. Beck U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage58. Beck U. 1995. Ecological Enlightenment: Essays on the Politics of the Risk Society. Amherst, NY: Humanity

Books59. Beck U. 1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity60. Gould K, Schnaiberg A, Weinberg A. 1996. Local Environmental Struggles: Citizen Activism in the Treadmill

of Production. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press61. Hooks G, Smith C. 2004. The treadmill of destruction: national sacrifice areas and Native Americans.

Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:558–7562. Schnaiberg A. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford Univ. Press63. Schnaiberg A, Gould K. 2000. Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict. New York: St. Martin’s64. Weinberg A, Pellow DN, Schnaiberg A. 2000. Urban Recycling and the Search For Sustainable Community

Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press65. Pulido L. 2000. Rethinking environmental racism. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 90:12–4066. Feagin JR, Feagin CB. 1986. Discrimination American Style: Institutional Racism and Sexism. Malabar, FL:

Krieger. 2nd ed.67. Pulido L. 1996. A critical review of the methodology of environmental racism research. Antipode 28:142–

5968. Pulido L, Sidawi S, Vos RO. 1996. An archaeology of environmental racism in Los Angeles. Urban Geogr.

17:419–3969. Grigsby E III, Bullard RD, Lee C, Feagin J, eds. 1994. Residential Apartheid: The American Legacy.

Vol. 2. Los Angeles, CA: CAAS Publ. Ser.70. Mills CW. 2001. Black trash. In Faces of Environmental Racism: Confronting Issues of Global Justice, ed.

L Westra, BE Lawson, pp. 73–94. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 2nd ed.71. Higgins R. 1994. Race, pollution and the mastery of nature. Environ. Ethics 16:251–6372. Cerrell Assoc., Inc. 1984. Political difficulties facing waste-to-energy conversion plant siting. Rep. prepared

for Calif. Waste Manag. Board, Los Angeles, CA73. Crenshaw K. 1994. Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women

of color. In The Public Nature of Private Violence, ed. MA Fineman, R Mykitiuk, pp. 93–118. New York:Routledge


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249985581_Racial_Inequality_in_the_Distribution_of_Hazardous_Waste_A_National-Level_Reassessment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249985581_Racial_Inequality_in_the_Distribution_of_Hazardous_Waste_A_National-Level_Reassessment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234137058_Exploring_the_Use_of_Buffer_Analysis_for_Identification_of_Impacted_Areas_in_Environmental_Equity_Assessment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234137058_Exploring_the_Use_of_Buffer_Analysis_for_Identification_of_Impacted_Areas_in_Environmental_Equity_Assessment?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291022563_Measuring_environmental_equity_with_GIS?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4790740_Who_Lives_on_the_Wrong_Side_of_the_Tracks_Evidence_from_the_EPA's_Risk_Screening_Environmental_Indicators_Model?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4790740_Who_Lives_on_the_Wrong_Side_of_the_Tracks_Evidence_from_the_EPA's_Risk_Screening_Environmental_Indicators_Model?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246596681_Separate_but_unequal_Residential_segregation_and_air_quality_in_US_metropolitan_areas?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246596681_Separate_but_unequal_Residential_segregation_and_air_quality_in_US_metropolitan_areas?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227653412_Which_Came_First_Toxic_Facilities_Minority_Move-In_and_Environmental_Justice?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227653412_Which_Came_First_Toxic_Facilities_Minority_Move-In_and_Environmental_Justice?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249985550_Historical_Context_and_Hazardous_Waste_Facility_Siting_Understanding_Temporal_Patterns_in_Michigan?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249985550_Historical_Context_and_Hazardous_Waste_Facility_Siting_Understanding_Temporal_Patterns_in_Michigan?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29445401_Environmentalism_and_the_Politics_of_Equity_Emergent_Trends_in_the_Black_Community?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29445401_Environmentalism_and_the_Politics_of_Equity_Emergent_Trends_in_the_Black_Community?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275301953_Local_Environmental_Struggles_Citizen_Activism_in_the_Treadmill_of_Production?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275301953_Local_Environmental_Struggles_Citizen_Activism_in_the_Treadmill_of_Production?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254078916_The_Treadmill_of_Destruction_National_Sacrifice_Areas_and_Native_Americans?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254078916_The_Treadmill_of_Destruction_National_Sacrifice_Areas_and_Native_Americans?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239970499_Environment_and_Society_The_Enduring_Conflict?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239970499_Environment_and_Society_The_Enduring_Conflict?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274808608_Urban_Recycling_and_the_Search_for_Sustainable_Community_Development?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274808608_Urban_Recycling_and_the_Search_for_Sustainable_Community_Development?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229702446_A_Critical_Review_of_the_Methodology_of_Environmental_Racism_Research?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229702446_A_Critical_Review_of_the_Methodology_of_Environmental_Racism_Research?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245300378_An_Archeology_of_Environmental_Racism_in_Los_Angeles?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245300378_An_Archeology_of_Environmental_Racism_in_Los_Angeles?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246004380_Ecological_Enlightenment_Essays_on_the_Politics_of_the_Risk_Society?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246004380_Ecological_Enlightenment_Essays_on_the_Politics_of_the_Risk_Society?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233869902_Risk_Society_Towards_A_New_Modernity?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269791494_Race_Pollution_and_the_Mastery_of_Nature?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==


74. Taylor D. 1997. American environmentalism: the role of race, class and gender in shaping activism,1820–1995. Race Gend. Class 5:16–62

75. Taylor D. 1998. The urban environment: the intersection of white middle class and white working classenvironmentalism (1820–1950s). Adv. Hum. Ecol. 7:207–92

76. Hurley A. 1995. Environmental Inequalities: Class, Race, and Industrial Pollution in Gary, Indiana, 1945–1980.Chapel Hill: Univ. N. C. Press

77. Pellow DN, Park LS. 2002. The Silicon Valley of Dreams: Environmental Injustice, Immigrant Workers, andthe High-Tech Global Economy. New York: New York Univ. Press

78. Logan J, Molotch J. 2007. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. 2nded.

79. Faber D, Krieg E. 2001. Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards: Environmental Injustices in the Common-wealth of Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Northeast. Univ.

80. Boone C, Modarres A. 1999. Creating a toxic neighborhood in Los Angeles County. Urban Aff. Rev.35:163–87

81. Walsh E, Warland R, Smith DC. 1997. Don’t Burn it Here: Grassroots Challenges to Trash Incinerators.University Park, PA: Pa. State Univ. Press

82. Toffolon-Weiss M, Roberts JT. 2005. Who wins, who loses: understanding outcomes of environmentalinjustice struggles. See Ref. 10, pp. 77–90

83. Roberts JT, Parks BC. 2007. A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and ClimateChange. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

84. Pellow DN. 2007. Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press

85. Agarwal A, Narain S. Global Warming in an Unequal World: A Case of Environmental Colonialism. NewDelhi: Cent. Sci. Environ.

86. Critharis M. 1990. Third World nations are down in the dumps: the exportation of hazardous waste.Brooklyn J. Int. Law 6:311–39

87. Marbury H. 1995. Hazardous waste exportation: the global manifestation of environmental racism.Vanderbilt J. Transnatl. Law 28:251–94

88. Tiemann M. 1998. Waste trade and the Basel Convention: background and update. Congressional Res.Serv. Rep. 98-638-ENR Congr., Comm. Natl. Inst. Environ., Washington, DC

89. Yang T. 2002. International environmental protection: human rights and the North-South divide. InJustice and Natural Resources: Concepts, Strategies, and Applications, ed. K Mutz, G Bryner, D Kenney,pp. 87–116. San Francisco: Island

90. Adeola F. 2000. Cross-national environmental justice and human rights issues: a review of evidence inthe developing world. Am. Behav. Sci. 43:686–706

91. Frey RS. 2001. The hazardous waste stream in the world-system. In The Environment and Society Reader,ed. RS Frey, pp. 106–20. Boston: Allyn & Bacon

92. Frey RS. 1998. The export of hazardous industries to the peripheral zones of the world-system. J. Dev.Soc. 41:66–81

93. Frey RS. 1994. The international traffic in hazardous wastes. J. Environ. Syst. 23:165–7794. Gedicks A. 2001. Resource Rebels: Native Challenges to Mining and Oil Corporations. Cambridge, MA: South

End95. Cifuentes E, Frumkin H. 2007. Environmental injustice: case studies from the South. Environ. Res. Lett.

2:04503496. Environ. Health Coalit. (EHC). 2004. Globalization at the Crossroads: Ten Years of NAFTA in the San

Diego/Tijuana Border Region. San Diego: EHC97. Filner B, Takvorian D. 2004. Promoting free trade isn’t really free. San Diego Union-Tribune. Dec. 17.

Opinion98. Smith T, Sonnenfeld D, Pellow DN, eds. 2006. Challenging the Chip: Labor Rights and Environmental

Justice in the Global Electronics Industry. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press99. Roberts JT. 2006. Globalizing environmental justice: trend and imperative. In Environmental Justice and

Environmentalism: The Social Justice Challenge to the Environmental Movement, ed. R Sandler, PC Pezzullo.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248243456_Urban_Fortunes_The_Political_Economy_Of_Place?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248243456_Urban_Fortunes_The_Political_Economy_Of_Place?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250145821_The_International_Traffic_in_Hazardous_Wastes?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230923782_Environmental_injustice_Case_studies_from_the_South?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230923782_Environmental_injustice_Case_studies_from_the_South?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285343873_American_environmentalism_The_role_of_race_class_and_gender_in_shaping_activism_1820-1995?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285343873_American_environmentalism_The_role_of_race_class_and_gender_in_shaping_activism_1820-1995?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298674487_The_export_of_hazardous_industries_to_the_peripheral_zones_of_the_world-system?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298674487_The_export_of_hazardous_industries_to_the_peripheral_zones_of_the_world-system?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301325712_The_urban_environment_The_intersection_of_White_middle_class_and_White_working_class_environmentalism_1820-1950s?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301325712_The_urban_environment_The_intersection_of_White_middle_class_and_White_working_class_environmentalism_1820-1950s?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297365530_Unequal_exposure_to_ecological_hazards_Environmental_injustices_in_the_commonwealth_of_Massachusetts?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297365530_Unequal_exposure_to_ecological_hazards_Environmental_injustices_in_the_commonwealth_of_Massachusetts?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249292188_Environmental_Inequalities_Class_Race_and_Industrial_Pollution_in_Gary_Indiana_1945-1980?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249292188_Environmental_Inequalities_Class_Race_and_Industrial_Pollution_in_Gary_Indiana_1945-1980?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270375692_Don't_Burn_It_Here_Grassroots_Challenges_to_Trash_Incinerators?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270375692_Don't_Burn_It_Here_Grassroots_Challenges_to_Trash_Incinerators?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270589053_A_Climate_of_Injustice_Global_Inequality_North-South_Politics_and_Climate_Policy?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270589053_A_Climate_of_Injustice_Global_Inequality_North-South_Politics_and_Climate_Policy?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270359947_Resource_Rebels_Native_Challenges_to_Mining_and_Oil_Corporations?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270359947_Resource_Rebels_Native_Challenges_to_Mining_and_Oil_Corporations?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==


100. Stephens C. 2007. Environmental justice: a critical issue for all environmental scientists everywhere.Environ. Res. Lett. 2:045001

101. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press

102. Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX. 2001. Climate Change, Vulnerability and Social Justice. Stockholm: StockholmEnviron. Inst.

103. Tearfund. 2008. Linking climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Web White Pap.http://www.tearfund.org/webdocs/Website/Campaigning/CCA and DRR web.pdf

104. Adger WN, Paavola J, Huq S, Mace MJ. 2006. Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press

105. Soc. Sci. Res. Counc. (SSRC). 2005. Understanding Katrina: perspectives from the social sciences.http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/

106. Boyce J, Wright B, Bullard R, Pastor M, Fothergill A, Morello-Frosch R. 2006. In the Wake of the Storm:Environment, Disaster and Race After Katrina. New York: Russell Sage Found/Soc. Sci. Res. Counc.

107. Bullard RD, Wright B. 2009. Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina. Boulder, CO:Westview

108. Foreman CH Jr. 1998. The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.109. Mohai P, Lanz P, Morenoff J, House J, Mero RP. 2009. Racial and socioeconomic disparities in resi-

dential proximity to polluting industrial facilities: evidence from the Americans’ Changing Lives Study.Am. J. Public Health. 99: In press

110. Agyeman J, Bullard RD, Evans B. 2003. Introduction: joined-up thinking: bringing together sustain-ability, environmental justice, and equity. In Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World, ed.J Agyeman, RD Bullard, B Evans, pp. 1–18. London: Earthscan/MIT Press

111. Agyeman J. 2006. Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice. New York: N.Y.Univ. Press

112. Malone L, Pasternack S. 2006. Defending the Environment: Civil Society Strategies to Enforce InternationalEnvironmental Law. Washington, DC: Island

NOTE ADDED IN PROOF

J. Timmons Roberts was affiliated with the College of William and Mary when this article waswritten.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230973181_Environmental_justice_A_critical_issue_for_all_environmental_scientists_everywhere?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230973181_Environmental_justice_A_critical_issue_for_all_environmental_scientists_everywhere?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254610840_Climate_Change_Vulnerability_and_Social_Justice?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254610840_Climate_Change_Vulnerability_and_Social_Justice?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236218985_Fairness_In_Adaptation_to_Climate_Change?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236218985_Fairness_In_Adaptation_to_Climate_Change?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51439417_Racial_and_Socioeconomic_Disparities_in_Residential_Proximity_to_Polluting_Industrial_Facilities_Evidence_From_the_Americans'_Changing_Lives_Study?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40777408_Defending_the_Environment_Civil_Society_Strategies_to_Enforce_International_Environmental_Law?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285786967_Joined-up_thinking_Bringing_together_sustainability_environmental_justice_and_equity?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285786967_Joined-up_thinking_Bringing_together_sustainability_environmental_justice_and_equity?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272321508_On_Understanding_Poverty_Perspectives_From_the_Social_Sciences?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272321508_On_Understanding_Poverty_Perspectives_From_the_Social_Sciences?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d974c7a3924f891fd17fac9efeebd3ee-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODIwMjM0NTtBUzoxMjQ3MTg3ODcwNzYwOTZAMTQwNjc0NjY4NDk2MQ==

AR390-FM ARI 14 September 2009 9:35

Annual Review ofEnvironmentand Resources

Volume 34, 2009 Contents

Preface � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �v

Who Should Read This Series? � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �vii

I. Earth’s Life Support Systems

The Detection and Attribution of Human Influence on ClimateDáithí A. Stone, Myles R. Allen, Peter A. Stott, Pardeep Pall, Seung-Ki Min,Toru Nozawa, and Seiji Yukimoto � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

On the Increasing Vulnerability of the World Oceanto Multiple StressesEdward L. Miles � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �17

Global Biogeochemical Cycling of Mercury: A ReviewNoelle E. Selin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �43

Interactions Between Biogeochemistry and Hydrologic SystemsKathleen A. Lohse, Paul D. Brooks, Jennifer C. McIntosh, Thomas Meixner,and Travis E. Huxman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �65

Nitrogen in Agriculture: Balancing the Cost of an Essential ResourceG. Philip Robertson and Peter M. Vitousek � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �97

II. Human Use of Environment and Resources

Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issuesof Near-Term TechnologiesM.V. Ramana � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 127

Global Groundwater? Issues and SolutionsMark Giordano � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 153

Crop Yield Gaps: Their Importance, Magnitudes, and CausesDavid B. Lobell, Kenneth G. Cassman, and Christopher B. Field � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 179

viii

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR390-FM ARI 14 September 2009 9:35

Water for Agriculture: Maintaining Food Securityunder Growing ScarcityMark W. Rosegrant, Claudia Ringler, and Tingju Zhu � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 205

Emerging Threats to Human Health from GlobalEnvironmental ChangeSamuel S. Myers and Jonathan A. Patz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 223

III. Management, Guidance, and Governance of Resources and Environment

Connectivity and the Governance of Multilevel Social-EcologicalSystems: The Role of Social CapitalEduardo S. Brondizio, Elinor Ostrom, and Oran R. Young � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253

Economic Globalization and the EnvironmentKevin P. Gallagher � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 279

Voluntary Environmental Programs: Assessing Their EffectivenessJonathan C. Borck and Cary Coglianese � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 305

The Economic Valuation of Environmental Amenities andDisamenities: Methods and ApplicationsRobert Mendelsohn and Sheila Olmstead � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 325

Infrastructure and the EnvironmentMartin W. Doyle and David G. Havlick � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 349

Scientific Bases of Macroenvironmental IndicatorsGordon H. Orians and David Policansky � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 375

Environmental JusticePaul Mohai, David Pellow, and J. Timmons Roberts � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 405

We Speak for the Trees: Media Reporting on the EnvironmentMaxwell T. Boykoff � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 431

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 25–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 459

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 25–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 463

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and Resources articles maybe found at http://environ.annualreviews.org

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

009.

34:4

05-4

30. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by 7

5.73

.0.2

40 o

n 10

/18/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Documents

Environmental Justice