Environmental Justice AnalysisTheories, Methods, and Practice - Chapter 1 pdf

Environmental

Justice Analysis

Theories, Methods, and Practice

Feng Liu
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material
is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot
assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use.
Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage or
retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for
creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC
for such copying.
Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.

Trademark Notice:

Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation, without intent to infringe.

© 2001 by CRC Press LLC
Lewis Publishers is an imprint of CRC Press LLC
No claim to original U.S. Government works
International Standard Book Number 1-56670-403-0

Library of Congress Card Number 00-041232
Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Printed on acid-free paper

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Liu, Feng.
Environmental justice analysis : theories, methods, and practice / by Feng Liu.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-56670-403-0 (alk. paper)
1. Environmental justice. 2. Environmental policy. 3. Equity. I. Title.
GE170 .L58 2000
363.7

′

02—dc21 00-041232
CIP

Preface

A classroom debate at the Wharton School turned out to be a preface to this book.
The professor, an economist, handed out an internal memo prepared by Lawrence
Summers, then chief economist of the World Bank. He wrote:

Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more migration
of the dirty industries to the LDCS [less developed countries]? I can think of three
reasons:
1. The measurement of the costs of health-impairing pollution depends on the fore-

gone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a
given amount of health-impairing pollution should be done in the country with
the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the
economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country
is impeccable and we should face up to that.
2. The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of
pollution probably have very low cost. I’ve always thought that under-populated
countries in Africa are vastly

under

-polluted; their [air pollution] is probably vastly
inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable
facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport,
electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high
prevent world-welfare-enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.
3. The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to
have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one-in-
a-million change in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much
higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country
where under-5 mortality is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over
industrial atmospheric discharge is about visibility-impairing particulates. These
discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly, trade in goods that
embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare-enhancing. While produc-
tion is mobile the consumption of pretty air is non-tradable.

The problems with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollu-
tion in LDCS (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack
of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively
against every Bank proposal for liberalization.

The professor started the debate by defending these arguments, and we were to
come up with counter arguments. Initially, there were some voices against these
arguments. A few minutes later, I found myself the lonely voice. Finally, I heard
some agreements with the professor. This school produces leaders of national and
international business management. The memo and debate have troubled me since.
Years later, on the morning of May 12, 1999, I read David Harvey’s

Justice,
Nature & the Geography of Difference

, Chapter 13 of which began with a description
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

of the Summers episode. During the same morning, coincidentally, it was reported
that Robert Rubin was resigning his post as Treasury secretary, after more than 6
years as a member of the Clinton Administration. During the afternoon, the president
named Rubin’s deputy secretary, Lawrence Summers, as his replacement. The source
speculated that Summers might face some opposition from Republicans on Capitol
Hill as he was viewed as more liberal than the market-oriented Rubin.
Years later, I still find myself puzzled and concerned about the debate. While
writing this book, I am thinking about the small debate in the context of a large
debate on environmental justice. I am thinking about the perspective that I would
like to offer to my readers. Is this only an economic issue? No. Is this a social
issue? Is this a moral issue? Is this a political issue? Is this a scientific issue? It is
all of them. This is what I would like to present to you: How to analyze environ-
mental justice issues using a multi-perspective, a multi-disciplinary and inter-
disciplinary approach.
This book is a comprehensive and analytical treatment of theories and methods
for analyzing and assessing environmental justice and equity issues. I strived to keep
this book well-balanced, carefully and critically examining both sides of the debate

and contributing to the debate with first-hand analysis. A lot of attention is focused
on the debate on various methodological issues of environmental justice research.
This book provides readers with a holistic framework for conducting rigorous
equity analysis, and particularly demonstrates how cutting-edge technologies and
methods such as the Internet, Geographic Information Systems, and modeling tools
can contribute to better equity analysis and policy evaluations. It covers a wide range
of policy areas such as air pollution, solid waste management facilities, hazardous
waste management facilities, toxic release facilities, Superfund sites, land use, and
transportation and a wide variety of geographic scales. It is a reference resource for
professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, academics, activists, and any
other individuals who are interested in environmental justice issues.
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

Author

Feng Liu has been working and conducting
research in the environmental and planning areas
since the early 1980s. His work has embraced a
wide spectrum of environmental and planning
issues such as air and water pollution, environ-
mental impact assessment, GIS, environmental
modeling, land use and transportation modeling,
environmental justice and equity, transportation
planning, land use planning, and smart growth.
His recent papers have appeared in

Environmen-
tal Science & Technology

,

Environmental Man-
agement

, and

Journal of the Air & Waste Man-
agement Association

.
Dr. Liu has worked in a variety of organiza-
tions, including academic research institutions,
environmental organizations, regional planning agencies, and state government.
He currently works at the Maryland Department of Planning, the lead agency in
the implementation of Maryland’s nationally renowned Smart Growth policies and
programs. Before joining MDP, he worked for the Baltimore Metropolitan Council,
Environmental Defense, University of Pennsylvania, and Beijing Normal Univer-
sity. He received a B.S. from Zhongshan University, an M.S. from Beijing Normal
University, and an M.A. and a Ph.D. in city and regional planning from the
University of Pennsylvania.
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

Credits

We gratefully acknowledge receipt of permission to use material from the works
cited below.

C

HAPTER

2

Reprinted by permission of Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co.KG. Liu, F. 1997.
Dynamics and Causation of Environmental Equity, Locally Unwanted Land Uses,
and Neighborhood Changes.

Environmental Management

21(5):643–656. Copyright
1997 Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co.KG.
Reprinted by permission of the Air & Waste Management Association. Liu, F.
1996. Urban Ozone Plumes and Population Distribution by Income and Race: a
Case Study of New York and Philadelphia.

Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association

46(3):207–215.
Reprinted by permission of the

Journal of the American Planning Association

,
Vol. 50, No. 4, Figure 1 on page 461, 1984.
Reprinted by permission of The Yale Law Journal Company and Fred. B. Roth-
man & Company from

The Yale Law Journal

, Vol. 103, pages 1383–1422.

C

HAPTER

3

Reprinted by permission of the

Journal of Planning Education and Research,

Vol. 6(2):86-92 1987.

C

HAPTER

9

Reprinted by permission of the

Journal of the American Planning Association

,
Vol. 60, No. 1, Figure 2 on page 22, 1994.
Reprinted by permission of the

Journal of the American Planning Association

,
Vol. 60, No. 1, Table 1 on page 23 1994.

C

HAPTER

10

Reprinted with permission from

Environ. Sci. Technol.

1998, 3, 32–39. Copyright
1998 American Chemical Society.
Reprinted by permission of the Air & Waste Management Association. Liu, F.
1996. Urban Ozone Plumes and Population Distribution by Income and Race: a
Case Study of New York and Philadelphia.

Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association

46(3):207–215.
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

C

HAPTER

12

Reprinted by permission of Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co.KG. Liu, F. 1997.
Dynamics and Causation of Environmental Equity, Locally Unwanted Land Uses,
and Neighborhood Changes.

Environmental Management

21(5):643–656. Copyright
1997 Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co.KG.
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

Acknowledgments

Needless to say, this book would be impossible without people around me, physically
or virtually, over the years. I wrote this in memory of my mother, Jianhua Liu, the
greatest mother, grandmother, and teacher in the world.
I would like to thank those who spent their time reviewing portions of the
manuscript. Professor Robert B. Wenger at the University of Wisconsin at Green
Bay provided invaluable insights and advice for the original book proposal and made
detailed editing and comments on Chapters 1 to 3. Mark Goldstein, a demographer
and my colleague at the Maryland Department of Planning, carefully examined and
commented extensively on Chapters 5 and 6. Dr. Collin Wu, Associate Professor of
Statistics and Mathematical Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University, carefully
scrutinized Chapter 7, provided invaluable comments, and made Chapter 7 more
rigorous. Stephanie Fleck, a GIS specialist and my colleague at the Maryland
Department of Planning, carefully reviewed and commented on Chapter 8 on GIS.
Dr. Jian Zhang of Caliper Corporation made useful suggestions on urban modeling
(Chapter 9) from a developer and practitioner perspective. Stephen K. Rapley of the
Federal Highway Administration provided useful comments about Chapter 13 on
transportation equity.

I would like to thank all those who have helped me in one way or another during
my research over the years. In particular, I am very grateful to Professors Stephen
H. Putman, Tom Reiner, and Roger K. Raufer of the University of Pennsylvania,
and Professor Charles N. Hass of Drexel University. Professor Putman provided me
with a lot of encouragement and support during my three and a half years of study
at Penn. For this research, he provided not only data and models but also very
insightful advice and comments. Professor Reiner was always there when I needed
his help. Professor Raufer introduced me to the field of environmental equity or
justice. He made very constructive comments on the risk perception perspective.
Professor Haas helped me better understand what I was doing in this research. I
would also like to thank Professors Arie P. Schinnar and Aileen Rothbard for
providing me with a policy-modeling research environment at the Wharton School
and the medical school. I thank my colleagues there.
This book draws upon my work published in

Environmental Science & Tech-
nology

,

Environmental Management

, and

Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association

. I would like to thank the editors and editorial staff of these journals
and the reviewers. Several people commented on the initial drafts of these chapters
or helped me with data collection. Dr. Benjamin Davy, then visiting Harvard Uni-

versity, provided constructive notations on my work on urban ozone plume and
population distribution. Mr. Jing Zhang, then at the Department of Statistics at Penn,
commented on my statistical methods for dynamics analysis. Mr. John R. Kennedy
of EPA Region IX provided air quality data for the Los Angeles case study. Ms.
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

Kathleen Brown and her colleagues at EPA Region III helped me with ozone data
for the Houston area. Mr. Bryan Lambeth of the Texas Natural Resource Conser-
vation Commission provided monitoring station information in the Houston area. I
thank all of them.
This book grows out of my long interest in the distributional issue of environ-
mental pollution and the use of modeling in scientific inquiry. I am indebted to
Professor Y. Tang of Zhongshan University, and to Professors (deceased) Peitong
Liu and Huadong Wang of Beijing Normal University, who inspired my interests in
environmental research.
I would like to thank the team at CRC/Lewis Publishers who worked on this
project. Robert Hauserman, then publisher, brought this book to life. Arline Massey,
acquisitions editor, oversaw the book’s publication. Mimi Williams and Randi
Gonzalez provided timely and patient editorial support.
My daughter, Ivy, reminds me of my family role every day. She always says
“baba” or “daddy” when she passes by my study room. Every time, I cannot resist
her call, not because she is “spoiled,” I just know that she is eager to help me out
and speed the whole thing up when she sits on my lap and types wildly on my
keyboard. She does not know that she and her mother, Vivien, have already helped
me understand a lot of things much better. For example, I learned, first hand, that
susceptibility varies with the life-cycle (infant, toddler, pregnant woman, senior) and
with race/ethnicity. Indeed, there is no average person, and each person should be
treated as an individual. Each individual should be treated with compassion, even
though rationality might be compromised.

Feng Liu
Baltimore, MD
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

Dedication

In Memory of My Mother Jianhua Liu
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

Contents

Chapter 1 Environmental Justice, Equity, and Policies

1.1 The Environmental Justice Movement
1.2 Environmental Justice Policies
1.3 Environmental Justice Analysis
1.4 The Debate on Terminology
1.5 Overview of this Book

Chapter 2 Theories and Hypotheses

2.1 Theories of Justice and Equity
2.1.1 Utilitarianism
2.1.2 Contractarianism and Egalitarianism
2.1.3 Libertarianism
2.1.4 Which Theory?
2.2 Economic Theory and Location Theory
2.2.1 Externality and Public Goods
2.2.2 Welfare Economics
2.2.3 Residential Location Theory

2.2.4 Industrial Location Theory
2.3 Theories of Risk
2.3.1 Psychometric Theory
2.3.2 Expected Utility Theory
2.3.3 Cultural Theory
2.3.4 Sociological Theory
2.4 Theories of Neighborhood Change
2.4.1 Classical Invasion–Succession Model
2.4.2 Neighborhood Life-Cycle Model
2.4.3 Push–Pull Model
2.4.4 Institutional Theory of Neighborhood Change
2.5 Summary

Chapter 3 Methodology and Analytical Framework for Environmental
Justice and Equity Analysis

3.1 Inquiry and Environmental Justice Analysis
3.1.1 Positivism and Participatory Research
3.1.2 Scientific Reasoning
3.1.3 Validity
3.1.4 Causality
3.2 Methodological Issues in Environmental Justice Research
3.3 Integrated Analytical Framework
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

Chapter 4 Measuring Environmental and Human Impacts

4.1 Environmental and Human Impacts: Concepts and Processes
4.2 Modeling and Simulating Environmental Risks
4.2.1 Modeling Exposure

4.2.1.1 Emission Models
4.2.1.2 Dispersion Models
4.2.1.3 Time-Activity Patterns and Exposure Models
4.2.2 Modeling Dose-Response
4.3 Measuring and Modeling Economic Impacts
4.3.1 Contingent Valuation Method
4.3.2 Hedonic Price Method
4.4 Measuring Environmental and Human Impacts for Environmental
Justice Analysis
4.5 Critique and Response of a Risk-Based Approach to Equity Analysis
4.6 Summary

Chapter 5 Quantifying and Projecting Population Distribution

5.1 Census
5.2 Population Measurements: Who Is Disadvantaged?
5.2.1 Race and Ethnicity
5.2.2 Income
5.2.3 Highly Susceptible or Exposed Subpopulations
5.2.4 Age
5.2.5 Housing
5.2.6 Education
5.3 Population Distribution
5.4 Population Projection and Forecast
5.4.1 Methods
5.4.2 Choosing the Right Method
5.5 Summary

Chapter 6 Defining Units of Analysis

6.1 The Debate on Choice of Unit of Analysis
6.2 Census Geography: Concepts, Criteria, and Hierarchy
6.2.1 Basic Hierarchy: Standard Geographic Units
6.2.2 Non-Standard Geographic Units
6.3 Census Geography as a Unit of Equity Analysis: Consistency,
Comparability, and Availability
6.3.1 Hierarchical Relationship and Geographic Boundary
6.3.2 Boundary Comparability over Time
6.3.3 Data Availability and Comparability over Time
6.4 Census Geography as a Unit of Equity Analysis: Which One?
6.5 Alternative Units of Analysis
6.5.1 Based on the Boundary of Environmental Impacts
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

6.5.2 Based on the Boundary of Sociological Neighborhood
6.5.3 Based on the Boundary of Economic Impacts
6.5.4 Based on the Administrative/Political Boundary
or Judicial Opinions
6.6 Summary

Chapter 7 Analyzing Data with Statistical Methods

7.1 Descriptive Statistics
7.2 Inferential Statistics
7.3 Correlation and Regression
7.4 Probability and Discrete Choice Models
7.5 Spatial Statistics
7.6 Applications of Statistical Methods in Environmental
Justice Studies

Chapter 8 Integrating, Analyzing, and Mapping Data with GIS

8.1 Spatial Measures and Concepts
8.1.1 Spatial Data
8.1.2 Spatial Data Structure
8.1.3 Distance
8.1.4 Centroid
8.2 Spatial Interpolation
8.2.1 Point Interpolation
8.2.2 Areal Interpolation
8.3 GIS-Based Units of Analysis for Equity Analysis
8.3.1 Adjacency Analysis
8.3.2 Buffer Analysis
8.4 Overlay and Suitability Analysis
8.5 GIS-Based Operationalization of Equity Criteria
8.6 Integrating GIS and Urban and Environmental Models

Chapter 9 Modeling Urban Systems

9.1 Gravity Models, Spatial Interaction, and Entropy Maximization
9.2 Deterministic Utility, Random Utility, and Discrete Choice
9.2.1 Deterministic Utility and Optimization
9.2.2 Random Utility Theory and Discrete Choice
9.3 Policy Evaluation Measures
9.4 Operational Models
9.5 Integrating Urban and Environmental Models for Environmental
Justice Analysis

Chapter 10 Equity Analysis of Air Pollution

10.1 Air Quality
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

10.2 Relationship between Air Quality and Population Distribution:
Theories, Methods, and Evidence
10.2.1 Theories
10.2.1.1 Residential Location Theory
and Spatial Interaction
10.2.1.2 Risk Perception and Human Response
to Air Quality
10.2.1.3 Theories of Neighborhood Changes
10.2.2 Methods
10.2.3 Evidence
10.3 Spatial Interaction Modeling Approach to Testing
Environmental Inequity
10.3.1 Problem Definition
10.3.2 Hypothesis
10.3.3 Methods: Spatial Interaction Modeling Using DRAM
10.3.4 Index Construction and Data Preparation
10.3.5 Model Estimation
10.3.6 Results
10.3.6.1 Los Angeles
10.3.6.2 Houston
10.3.7 Discussions and Conclusions
10.4 Equity Analysis of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
10.4.1 Problem Definition
10.4.2 Methods
10.4.3 Results and Discussion
10.4.3.1 Nonattainment Areas as a Whole
10.4.3.2 Spatial Distribution and Regional Differences

10.4.3.3 City vs. Non-City Nonattainment Areas
10.4.3.4 Major Findings
10.4.3.5 Implications for Environmental Policy

Chapter 11 Environmental Justice Analysis of Hazardous Waste Facilities,
Superfund Sites, and Toxic Release Facilities

11.1 Equity Analysis of Hazardous Waste Facilities
11.1.1 Hazardous Wastes
11.1.2 Equity Analysis of Hazardous Waste Facilities
11.1.2.1 Cross-Sectional National Studies
11.1.2.2 Regional Studies
11.1.3 Methodological Issues
11.2 Equity Analysis of CERCLIS and Superfund Sites
11.2.1 CERCLIS and Superfund Sites
11.2.2 Hypotheses and Empirical Evidence
11.2.3 Methodological Issues
11.3 Equity Analysis of Toxic Release Facilities
11.3.1 Toxic Releases Inventory
11.3.2 National Studies and Evidence
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

11.3.3 Regional Studies and Methodological Improvements
11.3.4 Methodological Issues
11.4 Summary

Chapter 12 Dynamics Analysis of Locally Unwanted Land Uses

12.1 Methodological Issues in Dynamics Analysis
12.2 Framework for Dynamics Analysis

12.3 Revisiting the Houston Case: Hypothesis Testing
12.3.1 Data
12.3.2 Tests
12.3.3 Results
12.4 Discussion of Alternative Hypotheses
12.4.1 Invasion-Succession Hypothesis
12.4.2 Life-Cycle Hypothesis
12.4.3 Push Forces: Other Environmental Risks
12.5 Conclusions

Chapter 13 Equity Analysis of Transportation Systems, Projects, Plans,
and Policies

13.1 Environmental Impacts of Transportation Systems
13.2 Incorporating Equity Analysis in the Transportation
Planning Process
13.3 Transportation System Performance Measures
13.4 Equity Analysis of Mobility and Accessibility
13.4.1 Concepts and Methods
13.4.2 Using Accessibility for Equity Analysis
13.4.3 Empirical Evidence about Mobility Disparity
13.4.4 Accessibility Disparity and Spatial Mismatch
13.5 Measuring Distributional Impacts on Property Values
13.6 Measuring Environmental Impacts
13.7 Equity Analysis of Transportation Policies
13.8 Environmental Justice of Transportation in Court
13.9 Summary

Chapter 14 Trends and Conclusions

14.1 Internet-Based and Community-Based Tools
14.1.1 EPA’s Environfacts
14.1.2 LandView™ III
14.1.3 Environmental Defense’s Scorecard ( />14.2 Trends and Conclusions

References
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

1

Environmental Justice,
Equity, and Policies

1.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT

Aurora Castillo was a soft-spoken woman in her early sixties. A resident of East
Los Angeles, she led the efforts during the late 1980s to defeat California’s plan
to locate the state’s first hazardous-waste incinerator near her predominantly His-
panic neighborhood (Russell 1989). Not far away in south-central Los Angeles,
Sheila Cannon, a single parent and part-time nurse, spent several hours a day
mobilizing her community in an attempt to scrap the city’s siting proposal for a
garbage incinerator in the predominantly African-American neighborhood. It is
people like Aurora Castillo and Sheila Cannon who have defined the concept of
environmental justice.
The environmental justice movement is “a national and international movement
of all peoples of color to fight the destruction and taking of our lands and commu-
nities” (Lee 1992). It represents a diverse, multi-racial, multi-national, and multi-
issue coalition and calls for equal protection of all people from environmental harms,
regardless of their race, ethnicity, origin, and socioeconomic status. “As with other
social movements (i.e., antiwar, civil rights, women’s rights, etc.), the environmental

justice movement emerged as a response to industry and government practices,
policies, and conditions that many people judged to be unjust, unfair, and illegal”
(Bullard 1996:493). It has emerged from grassroots activism and organizations and
penetrated national and international arenas. It is this grassroots environmental
justice movement starting from the early 1980s that pushes the environmental justice
and equity issue into the national and international environmental policy agenda. It
is this grassroots environmental justice movement that has made a difference in the
environmental thinking and policy making in the U.S. and will continue do so
worldwide well into the 21st century.
The environmental justice movement originated in the struggles of people of
color against toxic waste dumps and waste facility sitings in their communities. A
milestone event occurred in a rural, low-income, predominantly black community
in Warren County, North Carolina, in 1982. At that time, the State of North Carolina
had decided to site a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) disposal landfill facility in
Warren County. This siting decision sparked strong opposition from local commu-
nities. Local residents, grassroots organizations, regional and national civil rights
groups, and politicians joined together to protest the decision. The protest to block
the PCB-laden trucks resulted in the arrest of more than 500 people, including Walter
E. Fauntroy, then Congressman from the District of Columbia; Dr. Benajamin F.
Chavis Jr., then Executive Director of the United Church of Christ (UCC) Commis-
sion for Racial Justice (UCC 1987).
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

Many believe that this was a seminal event for the environmental justice move-
ment, and triggered a series of studies investigating the association between envi-
ronmental risks and population distribution by income and race. The most influential
of these studies is a 1987 nationwide study of treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) and uncontrolled toxic waste sites conducted by the UCC Com-
mission for Racial Justice. The report, titled

Toxic Wastes and Race in the United
States

, found that minorities and the poor bear a disproportionate burden of these
waste sites in their neighborhoods, and “(r)ace proved to be the most significant
among variables tested in association with the location of commercial hazardous
waste facilities” (UCC 1987:xiii).
When the Warren event and the UCC study gained national prominence, grass-
roots organizations protesting against environmental hazards in their communities
sprang up across the nation. Community protest organizations arose from Los Ange-
les to New York and from Houston to Chicago. In 1983, the city of Los Angeles
proposed the Los Angeles City Energy Recovery Project (LANCER), a network of
three 1,600-ton-per-day waste-to-energy incinerators (Russell 1989). The first incin-
erator, LANCER1, was to be constructed on a site in south-central Los Angeles, a
predominantly African-American neighborhood. Residents in the neighborhood
formed the Concerned Citizens of South-Central Los Angeles (CCSLA) to fight this
siting decision. They mobilized citizens in the community, and forged coalitions
with several grassroots groups, public interest law groups, and national environmen-
tal organizations. Their efforts led to the final withdrawal in 1987 after a commitment
of 5 years and $12 million. While the CCSLA was battling the city of Los Angeles,
the Mothers of East Los Angeles (MELA) was formed in 1984 to fight against the
state of California and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The state’s first state-of-the-art hazardous-waste incinerator was sited in Vernon,
which was only a mile and upwind from several neighborhoods in East Los Angeles,
the city’s largest Latino community. Like CCSLA, MELA mobilized its residents,
garnered allies, and took to the street during the campaign. They targeted permit-
granting authorities, challenged the decision in court, and pressured legislators. In
1991, the project was withdrawn (Bullard 1993).
While residents of Los Angeles were targeting facility siting issues, local com-
munities elsewhere in the country were also mobilizing and organizing to combat

various other types of environmental problems in their backyards. In the south side
of Chicago, predominantly African-American community members founded People
for Community Recovery to deal with a wide range of environmental risks from air
and water pollution to toxics. In Harlem, New York, African-Americans formed the
West Harlem Environmental Action (WHEACT) to educate and mobilize residents
on the issues of air and water pollution, toxics, open space, transportation, and
landmark preservation. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Southwest Network for
Economic and Environmental Justice (SNEEJ) was formed in 1990 to represent over
fifty grassroots and indigenous organizations from eight states in the Southwest
(Moore and Head 1993). SNEEJ led the regional efforts in educating, researching,
organizing, lobbying, campaigning, demonstrating, and petitioning about a wide
range of environmental and economic justice issues in the communities of color
throughout the Southwest. In southern Louisiana, a bi-racial coalition of community,
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

civil rights, religious, labor, and environmental groups was formed to combat envi-
ronmental problems in the so-called Cancer Alley (Bryant 1989). Cancer Alley refers
to a roughly 80-mile industrial corridor along the Mississippi River between Baton
Rouge and New Orleans. In 1988, hundreds of people embarked together on the 11-
day, 100-mile “Great Louisiana Toxics March” through the area. In the following
year, Louisiana passed its first air quality law (Goldman 1991).
The environmental justice issue intensified in early 1990 and was elevated to
the national arena. The environmental justice movement challenged major national
establishments, including mainstream environmental groups and the EPA. In 1990,
the Gulf Coast Tenants Organization and the Southwest Organizing Project sent
letters to the ten largest environmental organizations, “calling for equitable distri-
bution of resources and for representation of people of color on the boards and staffs
of the major environmental players” (Moore and Head 1993:119). The letters also
challenged the environmental groups for their lack of accountability to minority
communities in the United States and Third World countries. In July 1991, the NEEJ

submitted an open letter to the EPA “that documented more than a decade’s lack of
enforcement of environmental regulations in communities of color in the region”
(Moore and Head 1993:120). In January 1990, a small group of scholars, researchers,
and grassroots activists attended the Michigan Conference on Race and the Incidence
of Environmental Hazards. After the conference, the Michigan Coalition was formed
and drafted a memorandum to the United States Department of Health and Human
Services, EPA, and the Council on Environmental Quality, which called for the
agencies’ involvement in environmental justice by means of research, risk commu-
nication, policy impact assessment, education, and policy development (Bryant and
Mohai 1992).
These local and regional efforts led to national organizing and coalition building.
In October, 1991, the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership
Summit was held in Washington, D.C. “This was the first time that over five hundred
participants came together from a variety of traditions and cultural and economic
backgrounds to engage each other for the purpose of building unity and effective
agenda for environmental justice and action” (Bryant and Mohai 1992:215). The
three-day Summit produced the Principles of Environmental Justice (Lee 1992). The
conference received widespread media attention. It signified that a national and
international movement for environmental justice had taken hold. Indeed, when the
first “Directory for People of Color Environmental Groups” was published in 1992,
it identified 205 organizations in 35 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
In response to the calls from the environmental justice movement, EPA began
dialogues with environmental justice advocates. In July 1990, EPA created its
Environmental Equity Workgroup. The Workgroup was charged to (1) “review
and evaluate the evidence that racial minority and low-income people bear a
disproportionate risk burden,” (2) “review current EPA programs to identify
factors that might give rise to differential risk reduction, and develop approaches
to correct such problems,” (3) “review EPA risk assessment and risk communi-
cation guidelines with respect to race and income-related risks,” (4) “review
institutional relationships, including outreach to and consultation with racial

minority and low-income organizations, to assure that EPA is fulfilling its mission
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

with respect to these populations” (U.S. EPA 1992a:7-8). In June 1992, the
Workgroup released the final, two-volume report titled

Environmental Equity:
Reducing Risk for All Communities

. In November 1992, EPA established the
Office of Environmental Equity, which was later renamed the Office of Environ-
mental Justice. On November 4, 1993, EPA formally announced creation of a
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to “provide advice, consulta-
tions and make recommendations … directed at solving environmental equity
problems.” Environmental justice has evolved from the grassroots level and
entered the national environmental policy agenda.
As part of government response to the environmental justice challenges, gov-
ernment-sponsored conferences were held to address the environmental justice issue.
In December 1990, the National Minority Health Conference: Focus on Environ-
mental Contamination was held and represented the first comprehensive effort to
look at environmental justice issues from a scientific perspective (Johnson, Williams,
and Harris 1992). EPA, ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry),
and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) sponsored a
workshop on “Equity in Environmental Health: Research Issues and Needs” in North
Carolina in August 1992 (Sexton et al. 1993). The initial manuscripts discussed at
the workshop were published as a special issue in

Toxicology and Industrial Health

in 1993. Other academic and non-academic journals also began to devote entire

issues to the subject of environmental equity and justice. The 1992 March/April
issue of

EPA Journal

was titled “Environmental Protection — Has It Been Fair?”
(Heritage 1992). The

National Law Journal

published a special report in September
1992. The report argued that environmental laws were not enforced equitably.
In the U.S. Congress, bills were introduced which addressed environmental
justice issues. The “Environmental Justice Act of 1992” was drafted by then Senator
Albert Gore and later re-introduced by Senator Max Baucus and Representative John
Lewis. The “Environmental Equal Rights Act of 1993” was introduced by Repre-
sentative Cardiss Collins. Gore’s bill ordered EPA to scrutinize human health in the
100 counties containing the highest total weight of toxic chemicals and if adverse
health effects were found, to impose a moratorium on future siting that would
compound the problem. Collins’ bill sought to “amend the Solid Waste Disposal
Act to allow petitions to be submitted to prevent certain waste facilities from being
constructed in environmentally disadvantaged communities.” These bills did not
succeed in passing the Congress.
Some state governments also responded to the environmental justice call. In
April of 1993, the Arkansas legislature enacted the first state law on environmental
justice and equity (Hart 1995). The Siting High Impact Solid Waste Management
Facilities Act recognized the disproportionate concentration of disposal facilities
in low or minority communities and sought to “prevent communities from becom-
ing involuntary hosts to a proliferation of high impact solid waste management
facilities” (Ark. Code Ann. 8-6-1501 (b)). The Act established a rebuttable pre-

sumption that prevents permitting the construction or operation of a high impact
waste management facility within twelve miles of an existing one. In addition to
Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia enacted environmental jus-
tice legislation, mandating data collection and analysis of environmental justice
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

issues. Environmental justice bills were also introduced in Georgia, South Caro-
lina, New York, and California.
On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, “Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations.” He ordered each federal agency to “make achieving environmental
justice part of its mission” and identify and address “disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activ-
ities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and
its territories and possessions” (President Clinton 1994). In implementing this order,
federal agencies subsequently issued their environmental justice strategies. EPA has
made environmental justice one of its top priorities (see Table 1.1).
Originating in the facility siting issue, the environmental justice movement has
since broadened its agenda. The environmental justice movement has continued to
challenge the governments for unequal enforcement of environmental, civil rights,
and public health laws and differential exposure to environmental risks. Environ-
mental justice advocates have also attacked current policies and practice in risk
assessment, “discriminatory zoning and land use practices,” and “exclusionary pol-
icies and practices that limit some individuals and groups from participation in
decision making” (Bullard 1996:493). Recently, attention has also been given to
distributional impacts of transportation systems and urban sprawl.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES

Executive Order 12898 identified several areas for addressing environmental justice:

strategic planning, research, public participation, and information dissemination. It
established an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice for providing
guidance to and coordination among federal agencies, and directed each federal
agency to develop an agency-wide environmental justice strategy. In April of 1995,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released the document titled “Environ-
mental Justice Strategy: Executive Order 12898.” EPA’s guiding principles for envi-
ronmental justice include (U.S. EPA 1995a):
1. Environmental justice begins and ends in our communities. EPA will work
with communities through communication, partnership, research, and the
public participation processes.
2. EPA will help affected communities have access to information that will
enable them to meaningfully participate in activities.
3. EPA will take a leadership and coordination role with other federal agen-
cies as an advocate of environmental justice.
These agency strategies addressed major areas identified in the Executive Order
as relevant to their specific domains. The major themes for addressing environmental
justice concerns in these strategy plans include research, public participation, infor-
mation dissemination, development, enforcement, and pollution prevention.
Executive Order 12898 embodied a fundamental federal policy philosophy for
environmental justice: addressing environmental justice in the existing framework
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

of laws and regulations. Two laws that are very important for addressing environ-
mental justice are the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
§4321 et seq.) and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§2000d to
2000d-7). In December 1997, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which
has oversight of the federal government’s compliance with NEPA, issued

Environ-
mental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act

. In February
1998, EPA issued an

Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative
Complaints Challenging Permits

(U.S. EPA 1998a).
NEPA’s fundamental policy is to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
between man and his environment” (42 U.S.C. §4321). A primary purpose of NEPA
is to ensure that federal agencies consider the environmental consequences of their
actions and decisions as they conduct their respective missions (U.S. EPA 1998b).
For “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environ-
ment,” the federal agency must prepare a detailed environmental impact statement
(EIS) that assesses the full range of potential effects of the proposed action and all
reasonable alternatives on human health and the environment. Regulations estab-
lished by both CEQ (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and EPA (40 CFR Part 6) require
that socioeconomic impacts associated with significant physical environmental
impacts be addressed in the EIS.
In the memorandum that accompanied Executive Order 12898, President Clinton
specifically recognized the importance of NEPA for addressing environmental justice
concerns. The memorandum identifies four important ways to consider environmen-
tal justice under NEPA (Council on Environmental Quality 1997):
• Each federal agency shall analyze the environmental effects, including
human health, economic and social effects, of federal actions, including
effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when such
analysis is required by NEPA.
• Mitigation measures identified as part of an environmental assessment
(EA), a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), an environmental
impact statement (EIS), or a record of decision (ROD) should, whenever

feasible, address significant and adverse environmental effects of pro-
posed federal actions on minority populations, low-income populations,
and Indian tribes.
• Each federal agency must provide opportunities for effective communi-
cation participation in the NEPA process.
• Review of NEPA compliance must ensure that the lead agency has appro-
priately analyzed environmental effects on minority populations, low-
income populations, or Indian tribes, including human health, social, and
economic effects.
The CEQ guidelines offer six principles for considering environmental justice
under NEPA (Council on Environmental Quality 1997:8-9):
1. Agencies should determine whether, in the area affected by the proposed
action, “there may be disproportionately high and adverse human health
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income popula-
tions, or Indian tribes.”
2. Agencies should consider “the potential for multiple or cumulative expo-
sure to human health or environmental hazards in the affected population
and historical patterns of exposure to environmental hazards, to the extent
such information is reasonably available.”
3. “Agencies should recognize the interrelated cultural, social, occupational,
historical, or economic factors that may amplify the natural and physical
environmental effects of the proposed agency action.”
4. “Agencies should develop effective public participation strategies.”
5. “Agencies should assure meaningful community representation in the
process.”
6. “Agencies should seek tribal representation in the process in a manner that
is consistent with the government-to-government relationship between the
United States and tribal governments, the federal government’s trust

responsibility to federally-recognized tribes, and any treaty rights.”
Notwithstanding these environmental justice considerations in the NEPA pro-
cess, the power of NEPA to address environmental justice concerns has its limita-
tions. As the CEQ guidelines point out, “[t]he Executive Order does not change the
prevailing legal thresholds and statutory interpretations under NEPA and existing
case law. For example, for an EIS to be required, there must be a sufficient impact
on the physical or natural environment to be ‘significant’ within the meaning of
NEPA. Agency consideration of impacts on low-income populations, minority pop-
ulations, or Indian tribes may lead to the identification of disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects that are significant and that
otherwise would be overlooked” (Council on Environmental Quality 1997:9-10).
CEQ regulations require that significance be evaluated in terms of “intensity” or
“severity of impact.” The narrowed focus because of environmental justice consid-
erations could affect the determination (U.S. EPA 1998b). Again, these consider-
ations might not change the final decision, but they may introduce a very important
dimension that would make federal decision-making better and socially beneficial.
The CEQ guidelines clearly state the boundary: “Under NEPA, the identification of
a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on a
low-income population, minority population, or Indian tribe does not preclude a
proposed agency action from going forward, nor does it necessarily compel a
conclusion that a proposed action is environmentally unsatisfactory. Rather, the
identification of such an effect should heighten agency attention to alternatives
(including alternative sites), mitigation strategies, monitoring needs, and preferences
expressed by the affected community or population” (Council on Environmental
Quality 1997:10). NEPA’s role is also limited for its

future

dimension, only dealing
with the

proposed

actions and decisions of federal governments.
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is an important avenue for addressing
environmental concerns associated with the

past, present, and future

actions and
decisions undertaken by any entity that is a recipient of federal financial assistance.
This represents a much broader scope than that contained in NEPA. Title VI and
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

other related federal regulations prohibit recipients of federal financial assistance
from taking actions that discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin,
religion, age, or disability.

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin,
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to dis-
crimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Both the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and Title VI
prohibit

intentional

discrimination. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that
Title VI authorizes federal agencies to adopt implementing regulations that prohibit
discriminatory

effects

. On July 14, 1994, Attorney General Janet Reno issued a
memorandum, reiterating that “administrative regulations implementing Title VI
apply not only to intentional discrimination but also to policies and practices that
have a discriminatory

effect

.” The memorandum further states:

Individuals continue to be denied, on the basis of their race, color, or national origin,
the full and equal opportunity to participate in or receive the benefits of programs from
policies and practices that are neutral on their face but have the effect of discriminating.
Those policies and practices must be eliminated unless they are shown to be necessary
to the program’s operation and there is no less discriminatory alternative.

The Presidential memorandum accompanying Executive Order 12898 directs
Federal agencies to ensure compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of
Title VI for all federally funded programs and activities that affect human health or
the environment. EPA’s

Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative
Complaints Challenging Permits

demonstrates EPA’s commitment to use Title VI
as a means of redress for environmental justice. “Facially-neutral policies or practices
that result in discriminatory effects violate the EPA’s Title VI regulations unless it
is shown that they are justified and that there is no less discriminatory alternative”

(U.S. EPA 1998a:1-2)
A closely watched, high-profile case under Title VI is Seif vs. Chester Residents
Concerned for Quality Living. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide
whether a group of Chester residents may sue the State of Pennsylvania for permit-
ting waste-treatment facilities in their communities that allegedly resulted in dis-
criminatory

effects.

The legal issue the court is asked to address is whether private
citizens can sue over a government agency’s regulations that allegedly result in racial
discrimination. Did the U.S. Congress intend to create a private course of action in
federal court that bypasses a federal agency’s review and enforcement process under
Section 602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 simply by alleging a
discriminatory effect in the administration of programs and activities of a federally
funded state or local agency? The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that the federal civil
rights law allows such private lawsuits when

intentional



discrimination is alleged,
but it has never ruled directly on whether they are allowed over discriminatory

effects

.
Chester is a predominantly African-American, low-income community located
southwest of Philadelphia. It is home to four hazardous and municipal waste facilities:

the nation’s fourth largest trash-to-steam incinerator, the nation’s largest medical
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

waste autoclave, a sewage treatment plant, and sludge incinerator. EPA has found
that blood lead-levels in Chester’s children are “unacceptably high,” and that “both
cancer and non-cancer risks, e.g., kidney and liver disease and respiratory problems,
from the pollution sources at locations in the city of Chester exceed levels which
EPA believes are acceptable.”
Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL) is the local grassroots
community organization that has been fighting for environmental justice since 1994.
In May 1996, CRCQL filed a complaint in the Federal District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, accusing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) of discrimination by permitting waste facilities in this black com-
munity. Their suit was dismissed on the ground that there was no intentional dis-
crimination on the part of the DEP. CRCQL appealed his decision to the 3rd Circuit
Court. The Chester lawsuit makes no claims of adverse health effects suffered by
residents living near the plants, even though the plaintiffs cite statistics showing
higher mortality rates in Chester, when compared with all of Delaware County.
Instead, the lawsuit argues a narrower issue, that when the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection granted an operating permit to a fifth waste-treatment
plant in one Chester black-majority neighborhood, the residents suffered discrimi-
nation. In December 1997, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judge’s
ruling and reinstated the suit. “We hold that private plaintiffs may maintain an action
under discriminatory-effect regulations promulgated by federal administrative agen-
cies,” the appeals court said. The decision has already set precedent for the nation:
A community group has the right to seek enforcement of the civil rights statute and
more importantly they do not have to prove the intention to discriminate, which is
extremely difficult. On August 17, 1998, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as
moot at the request of the plaintiffs, who learned that the state agency had recently
revoked the permit for the proposed facility at the request of the permittee. Thus,

this important legal issue is left to a future case for resolution in the Court.
On May 1, 1997 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board rejected, until further review, the application of the Louisiana
Energy Services (LES) for a license to build and operate a privately owned uranium
enrichment plant in the mostly poor and African-American Forest Grove and Center
Springs, Louisiana communities. Citizens Against Nuclear Trash (CANT), a local
citizens group, charged the company with environmental racism and filed a lawsuit
to block the plant. The judges found that the NRC staff had failed to consider
environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed plant on the two nearby
African-American communities as required under NEPA and the 1994 Environmen-
tal Justice Presidential Executive Order 12898. The decision is significant in that it
is the first court ruling in the country whereby a permit was denied on environmental
justice grounds.
These developments turn into a demand for rigorous analysis of environmental
justice implications of public policies, programs, projects, and plans. This analysis is
equally important for governments at federal, state, and local levels, environmental
groups, environmental justice advocates, civic and grassroots groups, environmental
consulting companies, and industries. Any policies, programs, projects, and plans, with-
out careful analysis of their distributional impacts, could be and have been challenged.
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS

The importance of analysis and research has been demonstrated in Executive Order
12898, agency environmental justice strategies, court decisions, and the environ-
mental justice movement. Executive Order 12898 recognizes the importance of
research, data collection, and analysis in Section 3-3. It orders environmental human
health studies of “segments at high risk from environmental hazards, such as minority
populations, low-income populations and workers who may be exposed to substantial
environmental hazards,” and analysis of “multiple and cumulative exposures” to

environmental hazards. It directs each federal agency to “collect, maintain, and
analyze information assessing and comparing environmental and human health risks
borne by populations identified by race, national origin, or income.” The order
specifically identified data collection and analysis needs for areas surrounding federal
facilities and “areas surrounding facilities or sites expected to have substantial
environmental, human health, or economic effect on the surrounding populations,
when such facilities or sites become the subject of a substantial Federal environ-
mental administrative or judicial action.”
While environmental justice policies were formulated at the national and state
levels, the debate also intensified on several grounds. The 1992 EPA report on
Environmental Equity acknowledged “clear differences between racial groups in
terms of disease and death rates” and higher-than-average exposure of racial minority
and low-income populations to “selected air pollutants, hazardous waste facilities,
contaminated fish and agricultural pesticides in the workplace” (U.S. EPA 1992a:3).
However, the report did not find a clear cause–effect relationship between differential
environmental exposure and differential incidences, except for lead poisoning. “In
fact, there is a general lack of data on environmental health effects by race and
income” (U.S. EPA 1992a:3).
These findings apparently clashed with the belief of environmental justice advo-
cates, who saw their communities loaded with environmental hazards and their
residents suffering from a variety of illnesses and even cancers (Grossman 1992;
Lavelle 1992). This clash partially reflects two different perspectives on environ-
mental justice research (Sexton, Olden, and Johnson 1993). The community per-
spective, represented by environmental justice advocates, believes that there is strong
and sufficient evidence for environmental inequity and that environmental racism is
the cause. Therefore, policy intervention for redressing inequities and injustice is
justified, and environmental justice research is to help such intervention. The scien-
tific perspective, as held by some scientists, holds that there is still a paucity of data
for proving the cause–effect relationships and that the goals of environmental justice
are to identify, assess, compare, manage, and communicate environmental health

risks (Sexton, Olden, and Johnson 1993).
The fundamental differences between these two perspectives have created great
tension and debate between environmental justice advocates and the scientific com-
munity. Environmental justice advocates perceive scientists’ pursuit of the cause-
and-effect relationship as an excuse for delaying governmental action for addressing
their problems. They are frustrated that the scientific community cannot provide
clear answers to their questions, and confused when scientists themselves disagree
© 2001 by CRC Press LLC