This article was downloaded by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria]On: 20 December 2014, At: 16:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Public AdministrationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE: AN EMERGING PUBLICPOLICY ISSUEAlka Sapat a , Jaap J. Vos b & Khi V. Thai aa School of Public Administration , Florida Atlantic University , 111 E. Las Olas Blvd.,Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33301, U.S.A.b Department of Urban and Regional Planning , Florida Atlantic University , 2912 CollegeAvenue, Davie, Florida, 33314, U.S.A.Published online: 07 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Alka Sapat , Jaap J. Vos & Khi V. Thai (2002) ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE: AN EMERGING PUBLICPOLICY ISSUE, International Journal of Public Administration, 25:2-3, 143-168, DOI: 10.1081/PAD-120013233

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120013233

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

INTRODUCTION

ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE: AN

EMERGING PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE

Alka Sapat,1

Jaap J. Vos,2

and Khi V. Thai1

1School of Public Administration, Florida AtlanticUniversity, 111 E. Las Olas Blvd.,Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

2Department of Urban and Regional Planning,Florida Atlantic University, 2912 College Avenue,

Davie, Florida 33314

ABSTRACT

Environmental justice is a major issue today and of interestto citizens, administrators, and scholars of public adminis-tration. In this introduction, we review the emergence of theenvironmental justice movement and discuss the develop-ment of the field by presenting an overview of the literatureand existent research on environmental justice. Thisresearch has focused to a large extent on siting issues andon the causes and explanations of environmental equity. Inparticular, five causes or explanations of environmentalinjustice have been emphasized in the literature: (a) race; (b)economic and market factors; (c) political and adminis-trative issues; (d) attitudinal issues; and (e) post-materialism.We review the major pieces of research and evidence inthese areas and compare and contrast the explanationsof environmental injustice. For the most part we findthat there is considerable controversy over the different

143

Copyright # 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com

INT’L. J. OF PUBLIC ADMIN., 25(2&3), 143–168 (2002)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

explanations and causes of environmental injustice. In thethird section of the paper, we highlight some of the issuesthat have not been explored so far and the unfulfilled gaps,in academic research on environmental justice issues. Weconclude by presenting a brief synopsis of the articles in thissymposium.

INTRODUCTION

The members of the American Society of Public Administration(ASPA) are bound by the ASPA Code of Ethics to:

‘‘. . . Oppose all forms of discrimination and harassment, andpromote affirmative action. . .. . . Recognize and support the public’s rights to know the public’sbusiness. . . .. . . Involve citizens in policy decision-making. . . .. . . Eliminate unlawful discrimination. . . and,. . . Promote constitutional principles of equality, fairness, repre-sentativeness, responsiveness, and due process in protecting citizenrights. . .’’(1)

In fulfilling their responsibilities as laid out in the ASPA Code ofEthics, public administrators are required to consider citizen participationseriously and to promote affirmative action. They are also required toeliminate unlawful discrimination. These values and requirements for publicadministrators highlight the importance that issues of justice and equityhave for the public administration community of practitioners andacademics. Encompassed with these issues, is the issue of environmentaljustice and equity. Since the 1960s, issues concerning the environment havereceived considerable attention, both scholarly and non-scholarly. Thegrowth of environmental legislation and regulations has had significantramifications for public administrators in this field. However, whileenvironmental issues have achieved considerable importance in the field ofpublic administration, issues related to environmental justice have beensomewhat neglected. This symposium proposes to address various issuesrelated to the notions of environmental justice and equity in the field ofpublic administration.

To begin, we clarify the usage of the terms used in this symposium.Often the terms environmental justice, environmental racism,and environmental equity are used interchangeably. However, each of theseterms has its own distinct meaning. Environmental racism is generally seen

144 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

as an extension of racism and refers to policy, rules, or regulations,intentional or not, that targets groups or communities based on their race.(2)

As Bryant points out, it also refers to the ‘‘unequal protection against toxicor hazardous waste exposure and the systematic exclusion of people of colorfrom environmental decisions affecting their communities.’’(3) The termenvironmental equity refers to the equal protection of environmental lawsand holds that the burden of environmental pollution and health risksshould be born equally by all populations.(4) Environmental justice is muchbroader in scope and encompasses both environmental racism andenvironmental equity. It refers to the achievement of equal protection forall people regardless of race, class, or location. It implies the attainment ofan environment where all people can interact with confidence that theirenvironment is safe, productive, and nurturing.(5) Throughout thissymposium, various aspects of the terms discussed here will be exploredby the authors.

In this introduction, we begin by reviewing the emergence of theenvironmental justice movement and discuss the development of the field.Next, we present an overview of the literature and existent research onenvironmental justice. This research has focused to a large extent on sitingissues and on the causes and explanations of environmental equity. Inparticular, five causes or explanations of environmental injustice have beenemphasized in the literature: (a) race; (b) economic and market factors;(c) political and administrative issues; (d) attitudinal issues; and (e) post-materialism. We review the major pieces of research and evidence in theseareas and compare and contrast the explanations of environmental injustice.In the third section of the paper, we highlight some of the issues that havenot been explored so far, the unfulfilled gaps, in academic research onenvironmental justice issues. The last section of the paper is a brief synopsisof the articles in this symposium.

EVOLUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

JUSTICE MOVEMENT

The environmental justice movement was born out of grass-rootsopposition to hazardous waste sites and scholarly studies on the subject.Both grass-roots activism and scholarly attention were mutually synergisticand led to increasing attention to the problem. This discussion of theevolution of the environmental justice movement will focus on how theactivities of both scholars and the citizens led to the adoption of policies tosolve this problem.

INTRODUCTION 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

Grass-roots activism played a very major role in the growth of theenvironmental justice movement. Some of the grass-roots activism grew outof the Not-In-My-BackYard or NIMBY movement that attempted to blocktoxic waste sites at the local level, which broadened its concerns toenvironmental justice issues.(6) Protest activities in the environmental justicearena can be traced back to as early as activity in Durham, Connecticut in1970, activity in Shenandoan Stables, Missouri in 1971, and in Worburn,Massachusetts in 1972.(7) However, it was not until 1982 that protest at thegrass-roots level drew the attention of the nation to the problem ofenvironmental injustice. In that year, more than 500 people were arrestedwhile blocking trucks loaded with PCBs in Warren County, a rural andpredominately black county in North Carolina.

The problem began when a hazardous waste management firm, inconjunction with the state of North Carolina and the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, proposed the construction of a large hazardous wastelandfill in Warren County. When the residents of Warren County becamealerted to the nature of the landfill, the Warren County Citizens ConcernedAbout PCBs was formed.(8) The residents protested the proposed siting ofthe PCB landfill for four years, finally in 1982, they resorted to using a civildisobedience campaign. The grass-roots activists were joined by a number ofcivil rights advocacy groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus, theUnited Church of Christ Commission of Racial Justice, and the SouthernChristian Leadership Conference. Protesters argued that the siting of thelandfill was a violation of civil rights, as Warren County was one of thepoorest counties in the state, with a population that was 65 percent AfricanAmerican. Although the blocking of the PCB trucks proved unsuccessful instopping the operation of the landfill,(9) the national media coverage of theevents in Warren County focused the public attention on the relationshipbetween pollution and race. In addition, the Warren County protests clearlylinked environmental justice concerns to civil rights, which served as amodel for future protests that were staged against environmental injustice inother communities.

This episode in Warren County was followed by other protests bylocal environmental and civil rights groups against the location of pollutingfacilities. For instance, in 1985, the Concerned Citizens of South CentralLos Angeles (CCOSCLA) protested and successfully defeated a proposal tolocate a solid waste incinerator in their neighborhood.(10) More importantly,the protests in Warren County served to spark the growth of grass-rootsgroups opposing environmental injustice, as well as the growth of alliancesbetween these grass-roots groups with national environmental associations,leading to the development of the environmental justice movement.Residents in minority communities joined together in local grass-roots

146 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

groups to oppose the siting of environmentally hazardous facilities and toobtain compensation for exposure to chemicals. These ‘environmentaljustice groups’ have focused most of their attention to changes at the grass-roots level (11) and link environmental issues with themes of fairness, justice,and the distribution of environmental impacts and costs.(12) In contrast tothe traditional local NIMBY groups, environmental justice groups are notjust concerned with protecting their own neighborhoods or specific areas,instead the principle of the environmental justice movement is that ‘‘. . .environmental quality is a basic right of all individuals.’’(13) Bullard arguesthat this is also where environmental justice groups differ from thetraditional environmental organizations. He characterizes the protest ofthe traditional national environmental organizations with NIMBY-ism, abehavior that often led to the placement of environmental hazardousactivities in poor, powerless, black communities.(14) Given this difference inbasic beliefs, it is not surprising that environmental justice groups usually donot originate from the mainstream national environmental organizationsbut instead emerge from established local social action organizations such aschurches and civil rights organizations.(15) An additional reason for theformation of new groups was that most mainstream environmentalorganizations have traditionally focused on wilderness and wildlifepreservation, natural resource management, pollution abatement andpopulation control.(16) Minorities however are more interested in toxicchemicals, waste reduction, incineration of waste, environmental healthissues, the trade-off between environmental quality and economic develop-ment, lack of adequate housing and living and working in pollutedneighborhoods.(17)

The formation of these groups led to a spurt in the growth of grass-root organizations around the country. Bullard, for instance, reports thatwhile eleven percent of the environmental justice groups were formed priorto 1970 and twenty-four percent of such groups were formed between 1971and 1980, a whopping sixty-five percent of these groups were formed duringthe 1980s and 1990s. Similarly, the Citizens Clearinghouse for HazardousWaste estimated that it worked with over 7,000 community and grass-rootsgroups in 1990, while one year earlier it had only worked with 2,200groups.(18)

Increasingly, local grass-roots groups began to come into contact witheach other and realized they shared common aims and aspirations.(19) Localenvironmental justice groups began to band into regional networks, such asthe Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice (SNEEJ),which provides local groups with technical assistance and help with stagingopposition to numerous hazardous facilities. The SNEEJ had also provideda forum for the development of strategies to overcome environmental

INTRODUCTION 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

injustice. Local groups and regional networks such as the SNEEJ havealso worked with national environmental organizations that have assistedthem in lobbying, technical analysis, organizational management, andthe organization of protests. The outcome of this collaboration betweenvarious local groups, regional networks, and national environmentalorganizations has helped the evolution of the environmental justicemovement and enabled it to become more cohesive.(19) In 1990, the nation’sfirst conference on race and environmental hazards was organized byrepresentatives from several of these groups; the recommendations andpolicy prescriptions generated at this conference served as the basis for theEPA’s efforts to address environmental inequities. This conference wasfollowed by the 1991 People of Color Leadership Summit on theEnvironment that was held in Washington, DC. This summit wasinstrumental in galvanizing national and grass-roots support to develop acomprehensive strategy to combat environmental inequities and unequalprotection. The 1991 summit was also helpful in bringing diverse groups ofcolor together, which led to the emergence of networks that allow suchgroups to keep in touch with each other.

The academic community and intellectuals working in policy thinktanks, intergovernmental organizations, and universities also played a rolein the development of the environmental justice movement. Concerns aboutenvironmental justice were first raised in a report published by the Councilof Environmental Quality in 1971. This report, published a year after thecreation of the Environmental Protection Agency, found that racialdiscrimination adversely affected the urban poor and the quality of theirenvironment.(20) This was followed by Bullard’s study of resistance by anaffluent African-American community to the siting of a sanitary landfill intheir community.(21) One of the effects of the protest in Warren County wasa study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1983 concerningthe racial and socio-economic makeup of four communities surroundinghazardous waste landfills in the southeastern part of the United States. TheGAO found that three out of the four landfills were located inpredominately poor and black communities.(22) Although the results wereclear, the regional geographic scope was an important shortcoming of theGAO study that made it impossible to generalize the findings to other partsof the United States.

It was not until 1987 that the first comprehensive study about theoccurrence of environmental justice was done. In that year the UnitedChurch of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice published the results ofa comprehensive national study of the demographic patterns associatedwith the sites of hazardous waste facilities. The study found that race wasthe single best predictor for the presence of a commercial hazardous

148 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

waste facility in a community.(23) In addition, the study pointed out thatthree out of the five largest commercial hazardous waste landfills in theUnited States were located in predominantly black or Hispaniccommunities. The study also found that it was difficult for minoritycommunities to obtain information about environmental hazards.Finally, the study pointed out that although race is the single bestpredictor for the occurrence or non-occurrence of a commercial wastefacility, there was a link between the economic situation in a communityand environmental problems in general. The study concluded thateliminating hazardous wastes in minority communities should be apriority at all levels of government.

With this study by United Church of Christ in 1987, it was clear thatenvironmental justice was an important issue. Moreover, this study spawneda number of other reports and studies, helped the grass-roots movement intheir fight against environmental injustice which in turn spurred policy-makers to address the problem, and provided a firm foundation for theenvironmental justice movement.

OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE WITH REGARD TO

EXPLANATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

As discussed above, the environmental justice movement was aidedby scholarly attention paid to the issue. In this section, we present anoverview of the literature and extant research on environmental justice.While the issue of environmental justice has led to numerous studies, itwould not be profitable here to provide a simple review of those studies.Instead, we analyze the literature by categorizing the research into thefour causes or explanations of environmental injustice that have beenemphasized in the literature. These are as follows: (1) Racism; (2)Economic and market factors; (3) Political and administrative issues;and (4) Attitudinal issues. We provide a synoptic view of the majorpieces of research and evidence in each of these areas and compare andcontrast the scholarly views on these explanations of environmentalinjustice.

Racism

Many scholars have argued that environmentally hazardous activitiesand the negative side effects of environmental regulation disproportionallyburden communities with a high percentage of racial minorities. Following

INTRODUCTION 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

the GAO report and the United Church of Christ study, later studies alsoshowed that racial minorities were not only disproportionately impacted bylandfills and hazardous waste facilities but were in general confronted withhigher levels of pollutants. In his book, ‘‘Dumping in Dixie’’ published in1990, Bullard argued that minority neighborhoods are explicitly targeted toreceive polluting facilities. He also claimed that the federal and other levelsof government were to blame for the ‘urban apartheid’ existing in the UnitedStates and that discriminatory land-use practices had led to the creation andperpetuation of unequal protection for blacks and whites.(24) In laterpublications, Bullard has continued to argue that the process of facilitysiting is driven primarily by environmental racism.(25)

Bullard’s arguments have found support in other studies as well. In anational study of lead poisoning in children, the federal Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry found that, independent of social classfactors, African-American children were two to three times more likelythan white children to suffer from lead poisoning.(26) Other researchersfound a relation between air pollution and race, independent of social classvariables such as income, education and occupational status. Gianessi,Peskin and Wolff performed a national analysis of the distribution of airpollution by income and race. Using data from the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) to calculate an estimated dollar amount sufferedfrom exposure to air pollution, they found that racial minorities weremuch more likely to suffer greater damage from air pollution than whitesat all income levels.(27) In another national study, Gelobter used pollutionexposure indices and found that over a period over 15 years (1970–1984)racial minorities were consistently exposed to significantly more airpollution than whites.(28)

There is some research that indicates that racial minorities are not onlyfaced with more and more serious environmental problems, but that theyare also less likely to benefit from more stringent environmental regulations.Gelobter found that whites are more likely to benefit from air qualityimprovements than racial minorities.(29) In a 1988 study about differences infish consumption between racial minorities and whites, West, Fly, Larkinand Marans showed the race bias in the ‘average fish consumptionassumption’ used in Michigan’s ‘Rule 1057’, regulating point-sourcemunicipal and industrial discharge of toxic contaminants into Michigan’ssurface waters. The study found that ‘Rule 1057’ did not take into accountthat blacks and native Americans consume considerably more fish thanwhites.(30) The studies of Gelobter and West are an indication thatenvironmental justice is not merely caused by the way environmentalregulation is implemented, but that the regulation itself has a racial bias.Some researchers point out that this racial bias is not only unfair and unjust,

150 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

but that it is also impossible to achieve lasting solutions for environmentalproblems as long as the issues of environmental injustice persist.(31) Theseauthors argue that as long as it is possible to pass on the costs ofenvironmental pollution to a powerless group, environmental legislationonly leads to a change of the location of that pollution. In other words,environmental injustice makes environmental legislation into an effect-oriented approach, which shifts the effects from the affluent areas to thepowerless. According to these authors, we need a source-oriented approach,in which it is not possible to pass the costs of pollution to others.(32)

Economic and Market Factors

Some scholars reject the notion that race is the primary explanationof environmental injustice. Instead, they argue that it is not just minoritygroups, but primarily the poor and disadvantaged who are subject tounequal protection. They argue that economic and market considera-tions underlie siting decisions of local hazardous waste facilities. Firmsrely on factors such as the availability of cheap and skilled labor, cheapland, access to raw materials, and access to transportation infrastructurein deciding where to locate facilities. Although this may lead firms tolocate facilities in poor and minority communities, the discrimination isnot intentional and the siting is determined purely by economicconsiderations.

There is some evidence to support the notion that market andeconomic considerations drive decisions to site polluting facilities. Forinstance, a study undertaken by a group at the University of Massachusettschallenged the notion that hazardous waste facilities are located in minorityand poor communities. This group compared the demographics of censustracts that had commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities(TSDFs) with nearby census tracts that had no facilities. These scholarsconcluded that there was no relationship between the location of TSDFsand race and poverty, eliminating the notion of a racial bias in site location.However, this analysis has been challenged and critics argue that theUniversity of Massachusetts study does not consider a vast number ofhazardous waste facilities since it examines only commercial TSDFs in largecities.(33)

Studies and analyses undertaken to examine the issue of economicfactors have necessarily had to deal with the issue of race as well. Thesituation becomes particularly muddy given the high correlation betweensocio-economic class and race. This has led scholars to examine the

INTRODUCTION 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

frequently asked question of whether the relationship between race and theincidence of environmental hazards is not simply a function of poverty.

Studies addressing this question with regard to the relative importanceof race and socio-economic class factors with respect to the siting ofhazardous and toxic waste facilities and firms have been important inshedding some light on this debate. Predominant among this research isthe 1987 study that was undertaken by the United Church of Christ’sCommission for Racial Justice (CRJ).

The study found that commercial hazardous waste facilities were oftenlocated in areas with low property values. However, this extensive study alsoexamined the data on the location of every commercial hazardouswaste TSDF in the country and then analyzed the socioeconomic andracial composition of the communities living within the ZIP codes in whichthese facilities were located. In this analysis, race was an importantdeterminant in the siting of facilities. The CRJ study found that on average,ZIP codes with at least one facility had a minority population of twenty-fourpercent, while ZIP codes with at least two facilities had, on average, aminority population of thirty-eight percent. In comparison, the minoritypopulation in ZIP codes with no TSDFs was merely twelve percent. Thestatistical analysis in this study also found that while the likelihood that theneighborhood would have a TSDF increased as the percentage of poor andminority residents of neighborhood increased, race was still a strongerpredictor than poverty.(34) These findings were supported in a study byRingquist, which extended the analysis undertaken in the CRJ study to allTSDFs in the country (commercial and non-commercial). In his analysis,Ringquist found that while race continued to be an important predictor offacility location, poverty was not.(35)

Similarly, in a review of 15 studies about the social distribution ofenvironmental hazards, Mohai and Bryant found that there was both a classand a race bias, and that the racial bias was not solely a function ofpoverty.(36) With data from their study about the relationship between raceand the location of commercial hazardous waste facilities in the Detroitarea, Mohai and Bryant found that these facilities were clearly locateddisproportionately in areas with a high percentage of racial minorities.Furthermore, they found that the relationship between race and the locationof hazardous waste facilities was independent of income and that race was abetter predictor for the location of waste facilities than income.(37)

In short, much of the extant literature on the issue of the relativeimportance of racial and economic factors weigh heavily in favor of theconclusion that economic considerations alone cannot explain the distribu-tion of TSDFs. Nonetheless, considerable debate still surrounds this issuein the literature.

152 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

Political and Administrative Issues

Researchers have found that the administrative and legal process itselfcan be barrier to participation by groups disadvantaged by the legal process.These barriers can be structural or they can be political and administrativein that policy makers can exclude certain groups from the policy makingprocess. For instance, Checkoway found instances of structural barriers inthe environmental planning process.(38) His research showed that mechan-isms to increase participation of all groups and citizens were often flawed:notices in the legal section of newspapers, meetings held in locations awayfrom public transport opportunities and during daytime and weekdayhours, technical language in documents, and procedural rules for publichearings and meetings that constrained two-way communications, allworked against adequate representation of minorities in the publicparticipation process.(39) In a study about the participation of racial andethnic minorities in solid waste management in two counties in Illinois, Vosfound that minorities were never asked to become active in solid wastemanagement decision-making, resulting in a lack of minorities input in theplanning process.(40)

Similarly, Lazarus found that policy makers seldom solicit racialminorities for environmental planning and decision-making boards.(41)

Other researchers have found that domination of whites on environmentalplanning and decision-making bodies form an invisible color and classbarrier for racial minorities to get involved in environmental decision-making.(42)

The existence of these political and administrative barriers may furtherweaken the power of disadvantaged minorities and led to a lack of politicalresistance and opposition. This lack of political resistance can lead pollutingfirms and governmental actors to try to site polluting facilities in areas wherethey face the least amount of political resistance. For instance, a reportcommissioned by the state of California explicitly recommended that thestate target areas that lack social power when trying to site incinerators.(43)

Alternatively, the presence of active political opposition can deter firmsfrom siting facilities in areas where such activism exists. Firms are less likelyto locate polluting facilities in neighborhoods where residents are politicallyactive. In investigating the impact of collective action on hazardous wastefacilities, Hamilton found that facilities are least likely to expand inneighborhoods where residents are politically active.(44) Similarly, Ringquistfound that the percentage of neighborhood residents who own their ownhomes is one of the best predictors of whether a permit to operate ahazardous waste TSDF will be approved or denied.(45) In short, existingresearch and evidence suggests that political and administrative factors may

INTRODUCTION 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

present significant barriers to participation by minorities and disadvantagedgroups. This in turn, may weaken political opposition and resistance by suchgroups, which can worsen environmental inequities and injustice.

Attitudes Towards the Environment

Some researchers have investigated minority attitudes and participa-tion in environmental issues in general.(46) Among such researchers, there issome agreement that there is a difference in participation levels betweenwhites and minorities in environmental issues. Furthermore researchersagree that there is a gap between environmental concern and environmentalactivism among racial minorities.(47) To explain these gaps and thedifferences in participation levels of racial minorities, researchers haveadvanced several explanations. These explanations have focused on fourmajor issues, which are as follows: (a) Disparities in concerns forenvironmental issues; (b) Differences in levels of personal and politicalefficacy; (c) Differences in the availability of resources and the hierarchy ofneeds, and; (d) Difference in subcultures. A review of the existing literatureand evidence for each of these points of view follows.

a. Differences in the Level of Concern

Research that has focused on this issue have explored the assertionthat racial minorities are less concerned about general environmental issues.To investigate this assertion, there are a number of studies that have focusedon the level of environmental concern among blacks. This research hashowever, yielded results that are contradictory. Some research has suggestedthat blacks are less concerned than whites about environmental problems.For instance, Kellert found that blacks are less interested, concerned, andinformed about the natural environment than whites.(48) Similarly, Mitchellfound that a lower percentage of blacks considered themselves sympathetictoward or active in the environmental movement (as traditionally defined)than did whites.(49) On the other hand, some research shows that blacks arejust as or more concerned about environmental problems than whites. In anattitudinal survey of 603 southern, urban, blacks, Caron concluded ‘‘blacksare just as concerned as whites about environmental issues; they differ onlyon some specific points.’’(50) Cutter (1981) found that those areas in Chicagowith high percentages of blacks were also the most concerned aboutpollution.(51)

154 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

b. Differences in Levels of Personal and Political Efficacy

Research has also focused on the issue of differences in levels ofpersonal and political efficacy among races as an explanation of thedifferences in attitudes and participation among groups. Such research hasexamined the claim that persons from minority communities are less likelythan persons from predominantly white communities to become activelyinvolved in environmental issues because minorities suffer in general fromlow levels of self-esteem and personal efficacy.(52) Mohai, for instance,demonstrated that minorities have a lower sense of personal efficacy, lessknowledge about the political decision-making system and fewer economicassets. He argued that the gap between environmental concern andenvironmental activism among racial minorities is not a function of race,but can be explained by the general lower participation of levels of personsin lower socio-economic strata.(53)

c. Differences in the Availability of Resources and the Hierarchyof Needs

Some researchers have focused on the relative availability of resourcessuch as time, money, leadership, and expertise. The theoretical justificationfor this argument is based on socio-psychological theory advanced byMaslow, who argued about a hierarchy of needs.(54) Maslow distinguishedbetween four levels of needs that range from basic needs, such as food,shelter, and security, to the highest need, self-actualization. He argues thathigher-order needs can only be fulfilled after all lower order needs are met.Researchers that use Maslow’s theory of the explanation of differences inenvironmental attitudes and perceptions point out that racial and ethnicminorities are in a constant struggle to meet their basic needs and aretherefore not concerned with environmental issues that are, according totheir interpretation of theory, at the top of the hierarchy.

The hierarchy of needs explanation was utilized by Hershey and Hill in1978. They argued that persons whose basic needs are barely met are notlikely to be concerned about higher-level needs such as pollution of theenvironment. They hypothesized that since blacks have a generally lowsocioeconomic status, their attitudes towards pollution are different fromthe attitudes of whites.(55) This hypothesis was supported by their researchin which they compared the environmental attitudes of white and black pre-adults in Florida. This hypothesis was also supported in earlier research byKreger, who found that in a sample of 28 black students, 23 indicated thatblacks were less concerned with the environment because of other pressingproblems that they face.(56) More recent research has argued that concerns

INTRODUCTION 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

about pressing social issues, such as unemployment, civil rights, and crimes,have resulted in a lower priority for environmental issues among blacks.(57)

Similarly, in a study about environmental paradigms in a metropolitanarea of Virginia, it was found that environmental problems were rankeda level lower by blacks than by whites because of concern by blacks forcivil rights.(58)

These findings present support for the hierarchy of needs theory. Inaddition, indirect proof for this theory can be found in studies that concludethat it is the middle and upper-middle classes that primarily supportenvironmental agendas. Also, studies of the membership composition ofenvironmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and Audobon Societyhave shown that environmental activists are drawn disproportionately fromthe white middle and upper-middle class.(59) Some analysts have interpretedthis as meaning that these groups are more concerned about environmentalissues and therefore this finding lends some support to the hierarchy ofneeds theory.(60)

Nonetheless, there are some scholars who contest the hierarchy ofneeds theory. They argue that the evidence to support this theory is rathersparse and that much of the research that supports this hypothesis was donein the early seventies, a time in which blacks were struggling for civil rightsand equal protection in the courts.(61) Recent national studies have alsodemonstrated that there is only a very weak link between socio-economicstatus and environmental concern.(62) Finally, different researchers haveshown that it is a mistake to think that there is direct link betweenenvironmental concern and environmental activism,(63) thereby indirectlyshowing that the membership of mainstream environmental organizations isnot necessarily proof of the hierarchy of needs theory.

d. Difference in Subcultures

A fourth issue that has some received some attention in the literatureas an explanation for differences in attitudes has been the subculturehypothesis. The subculture hypothesis focuses on cultural differencesbetween blacks and whites. According to this hypothesis, differences inenvironmental concern between blacks and whites are caused by a differencein their cultural heritage. Moreover, the subculture hypothesis asserts thatblacks have a lower level of environmental concern because of theirsubcultural values arising from their African heritage, experiences of slaveryand discrimination in public parks and natural areas.(64) Meeker et al. showhow nature, preservation, and the enjoyment of natural surroundings, untilrecently, have been a privilege of the upper class.(65) They point out that

156 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

‘‘the Myth of the Garden: is not a cultural attribute in the black tradition’’and that instead the history of slavery ‘‘has tied them to the land withhatred, not with love.’’(66) Taylor observes that a history of slavery andracial tensions in natural settings may have served to deny blacks anopportunity to develop appreciative attitudes towards nature and theenvironment.(67) Some studies indicate that the overall difference betweenblack and white environmental concern is caused by differences in concernfor wilderness related issues, thereby lending some indirect support to thesubculture hypothesis. For instance, studies by Caron(68) and by Cutter(69)

found that blacks were just as concerned as whites about the environmentalproblems related to health, but not as concerned about wilderness andpreservation oriented issues. Similarly, in a study in the Detroit area, Mohaiand Bryant found that blacks were just as likely as whites to mentionneighborhood environmental problems.(70) Research by Burdge et al. alsofound that blacks were not as concerned as whites about wilderness issuesand global environmental problems, but were concerned about localenvironmental problems.(71) To sum up, these studies provide some evidenceto support the subculture hypothesis; however, the research on this issue isstill sparse.

UNFULFILLED GAPS?

As discussed above, studies of environmental justice have examined anumber of different explanations of environmental injustice. However, thereare a number of areas in which controversy still exists. There are also otherareas that have received less attention from scholars and think-tanks. In thissection, we highlight some of the unfulfilled gaps in the literature.

Lack of Studies on Minority Groups

Most of the research on environmental justice has focused on thedisproportional impacts of environmentally hazardous facilities on blacks.So far, other racial minority groups such as Hispanics have received little orno attention form researchers. There are some studies about the siting ofhazardous facilities on Native American lands but these studies are typicallycase studies about the siting of hazardous waste landfills or uranium miningand focus on the economic pressure on Native Americans to accept thesiting of these facilities.(72) There are even less studies about environmentaljustice issues in predominately Hispanic communities, and environmentaljustice issues and (migrant) farm workers. Two of this symposium’s articleswill address this issue. First, in ‘‘Environmental Justice and the EIS:

INTRODUCTION 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

Low-Level Military Flights in Canada,’’ Ronald Pushchak examines theenvironmental justice of the Canadian military proposal to expand low-leveltraining flights over lands traditionally occupied by the Innu and otheraboriginal peoples who practice the last semi-nomadic hunting existence inNorth America. The author reviews thoroughly the implementation of theEIS process and the environmental justice of the decision. The fairness ofthe decision depended on how the EIS review was implemented: whether thereviewers and the procedures they followed were fair to the Innu, andwhether they acted ethically in deciding to expand low-level military flights.

In ‘‘Environmental Justice: A Case Study of Farm Workers in SouthFlorida,’’ M. Celeste Murphy and Leslie A. Leip examine the complexgovernment infrastructure that implements and enforces laws that werecreated to protect farm workers from environmental hazards. Using face-to-face interviews with farm workers in South Florida to determine whether thefederal and state laws are protecting this occupational group fromenvironmental hazards related to pesticide exposure, the authors find thatfederal and state laws which are currently in place to protect the workersfrom pesticide exposure do not adequately protect the workers fromexposure to harmful pesticides and farm workers are uninformed of the lawswhich exist to protect them from possible pesticide exposure. The articleconcludes with policy recommendations that will improve the implementa-tion and enforcement of the current laws designed to protect farm workersfrom pesticide exposure.

In addition to the above studies on immigrants and Native Indians,Robert Emmet Jones’s ‘‘Blacks Just Don’t Care: Unmasking PopularStereotypes About Concern for the Environment Among African-Americans’’examines how blacks and other less powerful groups have been unfairlyportrayed and represented within the public policy debate on environmentalissues. The common assumption that blacks are rather shallow in theirconcern for the environment is one example of this bias. Its validity isassessed under the conditions of the economic contingency hypothesis, whichspecifies that this apparent lack of concern by blacks should be most evidentduring periods of economic decline. Previous studies and analyses conductedon NORC General Social Survey trend data do not lend support to thisclaim. Suggestions are provided to better identify, articulate, and incorporatethe views of people of color in environmental policy and its administration.

Measurement Issues in Environmental Justice

There are two measurement issues in environmental justice research.The first is the way we measure environmental quality or the exposure to

158 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

environmental risk. The second is the level of analysis; zip code, census tract,block group or distance from environmentally hazardous facilities.Typically environmental justice studies investigate the link between thepresence of environmentally hazardous facilities and the percentage ofminorities in a particular zip code, census tract or block group as ameasurement of environmental justice. Although this is a relevant topic ofstudy, it is a measurement of the distribution of exposure to one particularrisk, rather than a measurement of the distribution of total risk orenvironmental quality among the population. Environmental quality is onlypartly determined by proximity to environmentally hazardous facilities. Bylimiting the research to the proximity to hazardous facilities, the researchdoes not capture environmental quality issues such as noise, odor, presenceof parks and green space, and air pollution from nearby roads. This researchalso does not include possible disparities in the provision of environmentalservices such as sewage, garbage pick-up and recycling programs. This lastomission is especially interesting since the Commission on Civil Disordersconcluded as early as 1968, that minorities did not receive the same amountof environmental services as whites did.(73)

Several of the articles in this symposium introduce new methods tobetter measure the occurrence of environmental injustices. The authors ofthese articles argue that most of the current research is limited by using thelocation of hazardous facilities as the main indicator of the occurrence ofenvironmental injustice. In ‘‘Using Data Envelopment Analysis to EvaluateEnvironmental Quality and Justice: a Different Way of Looking at the SameOld Numbers,’’ Eduardo Rhodes argues that environmental justice researchneeds to compile a better indicator of environmental quality. He introducesa new statistical method, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), which allowsresearchers to combine several different environmental quality indicatorsinto one measure of environmental desirability. Rhodes argues that usingthis combined measure might lead to different or clearer outcomes ofenvironmental justice research. In ‘‘Molecular Biomarkers As Measures ofEnvironmental Justice: A Proposed Health-Assessment Paradigm,’’ RichardD. Gragg III, Janvier Gasana and Ronald A. Christaldi suggest the use ofmolecular biomarkers in environmental justice research. They argue thatmost environmental justice research has ignored to look at actual exposureto pollutants and possible health effects. They state that molecularbiomarkers will not only provide the environmental justice movement withbiologically based scientific evidence about the occurrence of environmentalinjustices but also provide policy makers with information about possiblehealth risks and diagnosis and treatment regimens.

As mentioned early, past research on environmental justice concernshas focused primarily on the siting of hazardous waste facilities. Less

INTRODUCTION 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

research has been done on other aspects of environmental policy in whichconcerns of racial or other injustices arise. In ‘‘Blaming the Victim: TheRole of Decision-makers in the Occurrence of Environmental Injustice,’’Jaap Vos, Alka Sapat, and Khi V. Thai, using case studies, examine theimplementation of the Illinois Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 intwo counties in north-eastern Illinois, Kankakee and Will. They find thatin neither of the two counties were minorities included in the planningprocess, and out of a total of 91 advisory committee members, minorityinterests were represented by only one black male. At the same time racialminorities made up about 15 percent of the total population in the twocounties. The authors argue that the main reason for this lack ofrepresentation is not a lack of environmental concern among blacks. Norcan it be explained by a lack of interest in participation in environmentaldecision-making among blacks. Instead the process is led by misconcep-tions among planners and decision-makers who generally believe thatblacks are not interested in environmental issues and therefore notinterested in participating in environmental decision-making.

On the contrary, in another study, Teresa Cordova in ‘‘GrassrootsMobilizations in the Southwest for Environmental and Economic Justice,’’discovers the emergence of grassroots movement that challenges environ-mental racism—the systematic targeting of their labor for particularlyhazardous occupations and of their communities for the location ofhazardous materials. According to Cordova, the Environmental andEconomic Justice Movement exists in direct response to the toxic poisoningthat people of color face in their workplace and in their communities. Theauthor examines grass roots activists within the Environmental JusticeMovement that illuminates community responses to the inequality beingproduced by restructuring of the world economy.

Administrative Responses to Environmental Justice Issues

While there have been some studies on policy and administrativeresponses to problems of environmental justice, these studies have focusedprimarily on the federal level. To a certain extent, in their articles (in thissymposium), Murphy and Leip; and Vos, Sapat and Thai examineadministrative responses to environmental justice issues. But Evan J.Ringquist and David H. Clark in ‘‘Issue Definition and the Politics of StateEnvironmental Justice Policy Adoption,’’ fill this gap by examining the policyresponses of state governments to charges of environmental injustice. Aftera brief overview of environmental justice policy activity at all levels ofgovernment, they discuss how issue definition may help determine the

160 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

politics of policy adoption in the area of environmental justice, and developa theory to explain these policy adoptions. Then they model state policyactivity using probit and ordered probit analysis, testing to see whether theseresponses are best explained by the severity of the environmental justiceproblem in the state, state racial diversity, state political capacity, or stateadministrative capacity and evaluating whether these results are moreconsistent with redistributive or protective regulatory policy.

Finally, in ‘‘Administrative Responses to Environmental Racism,’’Denise E. Strong and Kathy Allen Hobbs look at the environmentaljustice movement from a different perspective. According to theseauthors, the environmental justice movement challenges public adminis-trators to develop appropriate administrative and policy responses toenvironmental racism claims. Public administration scholarship hasfocused little attention on claims of environmental racism and theenvironmental justice movement, in part as a result of a too narrowconceptualization of racism. The theoretical and empirical literature onracism would be useful in guiding research on environmental racism andcontribute to developing effective administrative responses by local, stateand federal government.

REFERENCES

1. American Society for Public Administration. Code of Ethics. PublicAdministration Review 2000, 60 (1), Back cover.

2. National Conference of State Legislatures. Environmental Justice: AMatter of Perspective; National Conference of State Legislatures:Washington, DC, 1995; and Kraft, M.; Scherberle, D. EnvironmentalJustice and the Allocation of Risk: The Case of Lead and PublicHealth. Policy Studies Journal 1995, 23, 113–115.

3. Bryant, B. Issues and Potential Policies and Solutions for Environ-mental Justice: An Overview. In Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies,and Solutions; Bryant, B., Ed.; University of Michigan Press:Washington, DC, 1995; 5.

4. Bryant, B. Issues and Potential Policies and Solutions for Environ-mental Justice: An Overview. Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies,and Solutions; Bryant, B., Ed.; University of Michigan Press:Washington, DC, 1993; 5–6.

5. Bryant, B. Issues and Potential Policies and Solutions for Environ-mental Justice: An Overview. Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies,and Solutions; Bryant, B., Ed.; University of Michigan Press:Washington, DC, 1993; 6.

INTRODUCTION 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

6. Sasz, A. Ecopopulism, Toxic Waste and the Movement for Environ-mental Justice; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, Minne-sota, 1994.

7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EnvironmentalEquity: Reducing Risk for All Communities; Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Planning and Evaluation: Washington, DC, 1992.

8. Geiser, K.; Gerry, W. PCBs and Warren County. In UnequalProtection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color; Bullard,R.D., Ed.; Sierra Club: San Francisco, California, 1994; 43–52

9. Lee, C. Beyond Toxic Wastes and Race. In Confronting EnvironmentalRacism; Voices from the Grassroots; Bullard, R.D., Ed.; South EndPress: Boston, 1993; 41–52.

10. Hamilton, C. Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles. InConfronting Environmental Racism; Voices from the Grassroots;Bullard, R.D., Ed.; South End Press: Boston, 1993; 207–219

11. Collin, R.W.; Harris, W. Race and Waste in two Virginia Commu-nities. In Confronting Environmental Racism; Voices from the Grass-roots; Bullard, R.D., Ed.; South End Press: Boston, 1993; 93–106.

12. Taylor, D. Environmentalism and the Politics of Inclusion. InConfronting Environmental Racism; Voices from the Grassroots;Bullard, R.D., Ed.; South End Press: Boston, 1993; 44.

13. Bullard, R.D; Wright, B.H. Environmentalism and the Politics ofEquity: Emergent Trends in the Black Community. Mid-AmericanReview of Sociology 1987, XII, 302.

14. Bullard, R.D. Environmental Blackmail in Minority Communities. InEnvironmental Policy in the 1990s, 3rd Ed.; Bryant, B. Mohai, P., Eds.;CQ Press: Washington, DC, 1997; 91.

15. Bullard, R.D. Environmental Blackmail in Minority Communities. InEnvironmental Policy in the 1990s, 3rd Ed.; Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.;CQ Press: Washington, DC, 1997; 91.

16. Bullard, R.D. Environmental Blackmail in Minority Communities. InEnvironmental Policy in the 1990s, 3rd Ed.; Bryant, B.; Mohai, P., Eds.;CQ Press: Washington, DC, 1997; 22.

17. Bullard, R.D. Environmental Blackmail in Minority Communities. InEnvironmental Policy in the 1990s, 3rd Ed.; Bryant, B.; Mohai, P., Eds.;CQ Press: Washington, DC, 1997; 37.

18. Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, 1991 as cited in Taylor,D. Environmentalism and the Politics of Inclusion. In ConfrontingEnvironmental Racism; Voices from the Grassroots; Bullard, R.D., Ed.;South End Press: Boston, 1993; 54.

19. Ringquist, E.J. The Source of Environmental Inequities: EconomicHappenstance or Product of the Political System? Paper Presented at

162 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

the Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting,Portland, Oregon, 1995; Foreman, C.H., Jr. The Promise and Perilof Environmental Justice; Brookings Institution: Washington, D.C.1998.

20. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EnvironmentalJustice, 1994 Annual Report; United States Environmental ProtectionAgency: Washington, DC, 1995.

21. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EnvironmentalJustice, 1994 Annual Report; United States Environmental ProtectionAgency: Washington, DC, 1995; back cover.

22. United States General Accounting Office. Siting of Hazardous WasteLandfills and Their Correlations with Racial and Socio-Economic Statusof Surrounding Communities; U.S. General Accounting Office: Wa-shington, DC, 1983.

23. United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. Toxic Wastesand Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial andSocio-Economic Characteristics of Communities Surrounding Hazar-dous Waste Sites; United Church of Christ: New York, 1987.

24. Bullard, R. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality;Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado, 1990.

25. Bullard, R. In our Backyards: Minority Communities Get Most ofDumps. EPA Journal 1992, 18 (March/April), 11–13; and Bullard, R.Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality; WestviewPress: Boulder, Colorado, 1990.

26. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The Nature andExtent of Lead Poisoning in Children in the United States: A Reprint toCongress; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Atlanta,Georgia, 1988.

27. Gianessi, L.; Peskin, H.M.; Wolff, E. The Distributional Effects ofUniform Air Pollution Policy in the U.S. Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 1979 (May), 281–301.

28. Gelobter, M. Toward a Model of "Environmental Discrimination. InRace and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time forDiscourse; Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder,Colorado, 1992; 64–81.

29. Gelobter, M. Toward a Model of "Environmental Discrimination.In Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time forDiscourse; Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder,Colorado, 1992; 67.

30. West, P.C. et al. Minority Anglers and Toxic Fish Consump-tion: Evidence from a Statewide Survey of Michigan. In Race andthe Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse;

INTRODUCTION 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado, 1992;100–113.

31. Bullard, R.D.; Ed.; Confronting Environmental Racism; Voices from theGrassroots, South End Press, Boston, 1993; 22; Taylor, D. Envir-onmentalism and the Politics of Inclusion. In Confronting Environ-mental Racism; Voices from the Grassroots; Bullard, R.D., Ed.; SouthEnd Press: Boston, 1993; 53–62.

32. Taylor, D. Environmentalism and the Politics of Inclusion. InConfronting Environmental Racism; Voices from the Grassroots;Bullard, R.D., Ed.; South End Press: Boston, 1993; 54.

33. Anderson, D.; Anderson, A.; Oates, J.M.; Fraser, M. EnvironmentalEquity: The Demo-graphics of Dumping. Demography 1994, 31, 229–248.

34. United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. Toxic Wastesand Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racialand Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities SurroundingsHazardous Waste Sites; United Church of Christ: New York, 1987.

35. Ringquist, E.J. Environmental Justice: Normative Concerns andEmpirical Evidence. In Environmental Policy in the 1990s, 3rd Ed.;Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; CQ Press: Washington, DC, 1997; 238.

36. Mohai, P.; Bryant, B. Environmental Racism: Reviewing the Evidence.In Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time forDiscourse; Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder,Colorado, 1992; 163–176.

37. Mohai, P.; Bryant, B. Environmental Racism: Reviewing the Evidence.In Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time forDiscourse; Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder,Colorado, 1992; 174.

38. Checkoway, B. Politics of Public Hearings. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science 1981, 17, 566–582.

39. Checkoway, B. Politics of Public Hearings. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science 1981, 17, 566–582.

40. Lazarus, R.J. Pursuing ‘Environmental Justice’: The DistributionalEffects of Environmental Protection. Northwestern University Schoolof Law 1993, 87, 787–857.

41. Vos, J.J. Environmental Perceptions and Participation in EnvironmentalDecision-Making Among Blacks: A Study of Environmental Justice andSolid Waste Management Planning in Two Illinois Counties (Unpub-lished Dissertation); University of Illinois: Urbana-Champaign,Illinois, 1996.

42. Bullard, R.D. Ed.; Confronting Environmental Racism; Voices from theGrassroots, South End Press: Boston, 1993; 19; Mohai, P.; Bryant, B.

164 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

Environmental Racism: Reviewing the Evidence. In Race and theIncidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse; Bryant, B.,Mohai, P., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado, 1992; 164.

43. Ringquist, E.J. Environmental Justice: Normative Concerns andEmpirical Evidence. In Environmental Policy in the 1990s, 3rd Ed.;Kraft, M.E., Vig, N.J., Eds.; CQ Press: Washington, DC, 1997; 244.

44. Hamilton, J. Politics and Social Costs: Estimating the Impact ofCollective Action on Hazardous Waste Facilities. Rand Journal ofEconomics 1993, 24, 103–125.

45. Ringquist, E.J. The Source of Environmental Inequities: EconomicHappenstance or Product of the Political System? Paper Presented atthe Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Portland,Oregon, 1995.

46. Meeker, J.; Woods, W.; Lucas, W. Red, White, and Black in theNational Parks. North America Review 1973, 3, 258; Solecki, W.D.Setting Environmental Justice in Space and Place: Acute and ChronicAirborne Toxic Releases in the Southeastern United States. UrbanGeography 1996, 17, 380–389; Heiman, M.K. Waste Management andRisk Assessment: Environmental Discrimination Through Regulation.Urban Geography 1996, 17, 400–418; Cutter, S. Community Concernfor Pollution: Social and Environmental Influences. Environment andBehavior 1981, 13, 105–125; Taylor, D. Can the EnvironmentalMovement Attract and Maintain the Support of Minorities. In Raceand the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse;Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado, 1992;28–54.

47. Taylor, D. Can the Environmental Movement Attract and Maintainthe Support of Minorities. In Race and the Incidence of EnvironmentalHazards: A Time for Discourse; Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; WestviewPress: Boulder, Colorado, 1992; 28–54; Mohai, P. Public Concern andElite Involvement in Environmental Conservation Issues. SocialQuarterly 1985, 66, 820–838.

48. Kellert, S. Urban American Perceptions of Animals and the NaturalEnvironment. Urban Ecology 1984, 8, 57.

49. Mitchell, R. Silent Spring/Solid Majority. Public Opinion 1979, 2, 16–20.

50. Caron, J. Environmental Perspectives of Blacks: Acceptance of theNew Environmental Paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education1988, 19, 100–105.

51. Cutter, S. Community Concern for Pollution: Social and Environ-mental Influences. Environment and Behavior 1981, 13, 105–125.

INTRODUCTION 165

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

52. Taylor, D. Can the Environmental Movement Attract and Maintainthe Support of Minorities. In Race and the Incidence of EnvironmentalHazards: A Time for Discourse; Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; WestviewPress: Boulder, Colorado, 1992; 38.

53. Mohai, P. Public Concern and Elite Involvement in EnvironmentalConservation Issues. Social Quarterly 1985, 66, 821–8.

54. Maslow, A. Motivation and Personality, 1st Ed.; Harper: New York,1954.

55. Hershey, M.R.; Hill, D.B. Is Pollution A White Thing? RacialDifferences in Preadults’ Attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 1978,41, 440.

56. Kreger, J. Ecology and Black Student Opinions. Journal of Environ-mental Education 1973, 4, 3, 30–34.

57. Bullard, R.D.; Wright, B.H. The Politics of Pollution: Implications forthe Black Community. Phylon 1986, 47, 71–78; Bullard, R.D.; Wright,B.H. Environmentalism and the Politics of Equity: Emergent Trends inthe Black Community. Mid-American Review of Sociology, 1987, XII,2, 21–38; Taylor, D. Blacks and The Environment. Environment andBehavior 1989, 21, 175–205.

58. Caron, J. Environmental Perspectives of Blacks: Acceptance of theNew Environmental Paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education1988, 19, 100–105.

59. Taylor, D. Can the Environmental Movement Attract and Maintainthe Support of Minorities. In Race and the Incidence of EnvironmentalHazards: A Time for Discourse; Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; WestviewPress: Boulder, Colorado, 1992; 28–54.

60. Peckinpaugh, T. The Specter of Environmentalism: The Threat ofEnvironmental Groups (Special Report); Republican Study Committee:Washington, DC, 1982; Tucker, W. Progress and Privilege: Americanin the Age of Environmentalism; Anchor/Doubleday: Garden City, NewYork, 1982.

61. VanLiere, K.D.; Dunlap, R.E. The Social Basis of EnvironmentalConcern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations, and EmpiricalEvidence. Public Opinion Quarterly 1980, 44, 190–200; Vos, J.J.Environmental Perceptions and Participation in Environmental Decision-Making Among Blacks: A Study of Environmental Justice andSolid Waste Management Planning in Two Illinois Counties (Unpub-lished Dissertation); University of Illinois: Urbana-Champaign,Illinois, 1996.

62. Lowe, G.; Pinhey, T. Rural-Urban Differences in Support forEnvironment Protection. Rural Sociology 1982, 47, 114–128; Mitchell,R.C. Silent Spring/Solid Majority. Public Opinion 1979, 16–20.

166 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

63. Mohai, P. Public Concern and Elite Involvement in EnvironmentalConservation Issues. Social Quarterly 1985, 66, 821–8; Taylor, D. Canthe Environmental Movement Attract and Maintain the Support ofMinorities. In Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: ATime for Discourse; Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; Westview Press:Boulder, Colorado, 1992; 28–54.

64. Taylor, D. Blacks and The Environment. Environment and Behavior1989, 21, 175–205; Washburne, R.F. Black Under Participation inWildland Recreation: Alternative Explanations. Leisure Sciences 1978,2, 175–189; West, P.C. Urban Region Parks and Black Minorities:Subculture, Marginality, and Interracial Relations in Park Use in theDetroit Metropolitan Area. Leisure Sciences 1989, 11, 11–28.

65. Meeker, J.W.; Woods, W.; Lucas, W. Red, White, and Black in theNational Parks. North America Review 1973, 3–7.

66. Meeker, J.W.; Woods, W.; Lucas, W. Red, White, and Black in theNational Parks. North America Review 1973, 5.

67. Taylor, D. Blacks and The Environment. Environment and Behavior1999, 21, 175–205.

68. Caron, J. Environmental Perspectives of Blacks: Acceptance of theNew Environmental Paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education1988, 19, 100–105.

69. Caron, J. Environmental Perspectives of Blacks: Acceptance of theNew Environmental Paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education1988, 19, 100–105.

70. Mohai, P.; Bryant, B. Race and Environment in the Detroit Area. Paperdelivered at the 1992 Meeting of the American Association for theAdvancement of Science, Chicago, Illinois, 1992.

71. Burdge, R.J; Vos, J.J.; McGurty, E.; Huysmans, A.; Husband, E.African-American Perceptions and Involvement in Solid Waste Issues:Indifference or Issue Difference?’’ Paper Presented at the 1992Conference of the Office of Solid Waste Research, University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, 1992.

72. Hall, K. Impacts off the Energy Industry on the Navajo and Hopi. InUnequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color;Bullard, B.D., Ed.; Sierra Club Books: San Francisco, California,1994; 130–154; Robinson, P. Uranium Production and Its Effects onNavajo Communities Along the Rio Puerco in Western New Mexico.In Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards; a Time forDiscourse; Bryant, B., Mohai, P., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder,Colorado, 192; Cover, K.; Walker, J. Escaping EnvironmentalPaternalism; One Tribe’s Approach to Developing a CommercialWaste Disposal Project in Indian Country. University of Colorado

INTRODUCTION 167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

ORDER REPRINTS

Law Review 1992, 63, 933; Tomsho, R. Indian Tribes Contend withSome of the Worst if America’s Pollution. The Wall Street Journal1990, (November 29), A1; Kay, J. California’s Endangered Commu-nities of Color. In Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice andCommunities of Color; Bullard, R.D., Ed.; Sierra Club Books: SanFrancisco, California, 1994; 155–190.

73. U.S. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Report of theU.S. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders; U.S. NationalAdvisory Commission on Civil Disorders: Washington, DC, 1968.

168 SAPAT, VOS, AND THAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Order now!

Reprints of this article can also be ordered at

http://www.dekker.com/servlet/product/DOI/101081PAD120013233

Request Permission or Order Reprints Instantly!

Interested in copying and sharing this article? In most cases, U.S. Copyright Law requires that you get permission from the article’s rightsholder before using copyrighted content.

All information and materials found in this article, including but not limited to text, trademarks, patents, logos, graphics and images (the "Materials"), are the copyrighted works and other forms of intellectual property of Marcel Dekker, Inc., or its licensors. All rights not expressly granted are reserved.

Get permission to lawfully reproduce and distribute the Materials or order reprints quickly and painlessly. Simply click on the "Request Permission/Reprints Here" link below and follow the instructions. Visit the U.S. Copyright Office for information on Fair Use limitations of U.S. copyright law. Please refer to The Association of American Publishers’ (AAP) website for guidelines on Fair Use in the Classroom.

The Materials are for your personal use only and cannot be reformatted, reposted, resold or distributed by electronic means or otherwise without permission from Marcel Dekker, Inc. Marcel Dekker, Inc. grants you the limited right to display the Materials only on your personal computer or personal wireless device, and to copy and download single copies of such Materials provided that any copyright, trademark or other notice appearing on such Materials is also retained by, displayed, copied or downloaded as part of the Materials and is not removed or obscured, and provided you do not edit, modify, alter or enhance the Materials. Please refer to our Website User Agreement for more details.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 16:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014