首页> 外文期刊>Environmental Research Letters >Which came first, people or pollution? Assessing the disparate siting and post-siting demographic change hypotheses of environmental injustice
【24h】

Which came first, people or pollution? Assessing the disparate siting and post-siting demographic change hypotheses of environmental injustice

机译:是人还是污染?评估环境不公正的不同选址和选址后的人口变化假说

获取原文
           

摘要

Although a large body of quantitative environmental justice research exists, only a handful of studies have examined the processes by which racial and socioeconomic disparities in the location of polluting industrial facilities can occur. These studies have had mixed results, we contend, principally because of methodological differences, that is, the use of the unit-hazard coincidence method as compared to distance-based methods. This study is the first national-level environmental justice study to conduct longitudinal analyses using distance-based methods. Our purposes are to: (1) determine whether disparate siting, post-siting demographic change, or a combination of the two created present-day disparities; (2) test related explanations; and (3) determine whether the application of distance-based methods helps resolve the inconsistent findings of previous research. We used a national database of commercial hazardous waste facilities sited from 1966 to 1995 and examined the demographic composition of host neighborhoods around the time of siting and demographic changes that occurred after siting. We found strong evidence of disparate siting for facilities sited in all time periods. Although we found some evidence of post-siting demographic changes, they were mostly a continuation of changes that occurred in the decade or two prior to siting, suggesting that neighborhood transition serves to attract noxious facilities rather than the facilities themselves attracting people of color and low income populations. Our findings help resolve inconsistencies among the longitudinal studies and builds on the evidence from other subnational studies that used distance-based methods. We conclude that racial discrimination and sociopolitical explanations (i.e., the proposition that siting decisions follow the 'path of least resistance') best explain present-day inequities.
机译:尽管存在大量的定量环境正义研究,但只有少数研究检查了在污染工业设施所在地可能发生种族和社会经济差异的过程。我们认为,这些研究的结果参差不齐,主要是因为方法上的差异,即与基于距离的方法相比,使用单位危险重合方法。这项研究是第一个使用基于距离的方法进行纵向分析的国家级环境正义研究。我们的目的是:(1)确定是否选址不同,选址后的人口变化或两者之间的总和。 (2)测试相关说明; (3)确定基于距离的方法的应用是否有助于解决先前研究的不一致结论。我们使用了1966年至1995年建立的国家商业危险废物设施数据库,并研究了选址前后东道主社区的人口组成以及选址后发生的人口变化。我们发现有力的证据表明在所有时间段内设施的选址都不相同。尽管我们发现了一些选址后人口变化的证据,但这些变化大多是选址前十年或前两年发生的变化的延续,这表明邻里过渡起的作用是吸引有毒设施,而不是设施本身吸引有色人种和低矮人群。收入人群。我们的发现有助于解决纵向研究之间的矛盾,并以其他使用基于距离的方法的地方研究的证据为基础。我们得出的结论是,种族歧视和社会政治解释(即选址决策遵循``阻力最小的路径''的主张)最能解释当今的不平等现象。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号