موقعیت محل دفن زباله در شهرستان شیکاگو: تجزیه و تحلیل فردی، اجتماعی، و اقتصادی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|28245||2002||41 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Resource and Energy Economics, Volume 24, Issues 1–2, 15 February 2002, Pages 53–93
In 1987, the United Church of Christ (UCC) released Toxic Waste and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites (1987) which stimulated substantial research and activism concerning the disproportionate exposure of minorities to environmental hazards. The current study responds to many of the deficiencies of previous research by integrating the demographic history with an empirical analysis of the distribution of hazardous waste in a major American industrial city. Two hypothesis are tested: (1) contemporaneous disproportionate exposure, and (2) discriminatory intent in waste siting decisions. Interestingly, there is evidence that Hispanics are disproportionately exposed, but there is not evidence of disproportionate exposure to the most dangerous hazards for African Americans either currently or historically.
The distribution of environmental hazards among urban populations has long been a topic of concern, and George S. Tolley was among the first scholars to formulate specific economic research criteria to respond to public discussions and concerns (Tolley and Gardner, 1979). His assessment of popular concerns and the need to pursue rigorous methodological inquiries into the causes for and effects of these concerns are as pertinent today as when he stated them in the late 1970s. This paper follows his vision: thoughtful, historically informed quantitative analysis of contentious and divisive urban policy issues. On 11 February 1994, President Clinton mandated that every federal agency “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission …” (Clinton, 1994). Since its inception in 1982, the environmental justice movement has prompted substantial research into the relationships between the distribution of environmental hazards and demographic patterns, and the possibility of disproportionate impact upon minorities and the poor. This study reviews previous environmental justice research, addresses key important methodological issues, and then implements the preferred methodology in a historical and empirical investigation of environmental justice in the city of Chicago. The environmental justice movement originated in 1982 when a large demonstration to stop the location of a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) disposal site in predominantly African American Warren County, North Carolina brought together activists concerned with the siting of environmental hazards (Godsil, 1991). The next year, the United States Government Accounting Office released a report that found three of four major hazardous waste facilities in the southeast were located in areas that were primarily occupied by African Americans (Mealy, 1990). Reverend Benjamin Chavis and Charles Lee, both participants in the 1982 demonstration, co-directed the publication of the United Church of Christ (UCC) Commission for Racial Justice report, Toxic Waste and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites ( UCC, 1987). Toxic Wastes and Race, updated in 1994 ( Goldman and Fitton, 1994), 1 provided the first systematic study of environmental justice. During its press release at the National Press Club in 1987, Reverend Benjamin Chavis coined the term “environmental racism,” referring to the discriminatory siting of hazardous waste sites in predominantly minority communities ( Mealy, 1990). The 1987 report used 1980 census data in two evaluations: a statistical analysis of the location of 415 hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal sites (TSDs), regulated under the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA); and a descriptive analysis of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The UCC study used means comparisons, matched pair means tests, and discriminant analysis to examine whether zip-code areas with no waste sites were demographically different than those with waste sites. The study concluded that “communities with greater minority percentages of the population are more likely to be the sites of commercial hazardous waste facilities” and that there is “an inordinate concentration of uncontrolled toxic waste sites in African American and Hispanic communities, particularly in urban areas.” This study is the most widely cited study that provides evidence of environmental racism.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Since the UCC published Toxic Waste and Race in the United States, environmental justice has been defined and researched in many ways. This analysis uses a model of three distinct events: when a facility was sited, when people migrated to that area, and when the facility was discovered to be dangerous. Further methodological problems in previous work are improved upon: inter-temporal dynamics are explored using historical analysis and empirical evaluation at two points in time, both immediate and extended neighborhoods are considered to estimate the effects of proximity to a site, variations in region size are controlled for, simple means comparisons are improved upon with various types of regressions, and jurisdictional clarity is achieved by concentrating exclusively on Chicago. This procedure provides strong empirical results and a useful framework for interpretation. A further, fundamental contribution of this research is the integration of the demographic history of Chicago with the empirical analysis. This approach provides a comprehensive framing of the issues that is not possible in previous national, aggregate studies. Historically, industry developed in Chicago in specific places with desirable industrial attributes, such as proximity to the Chicago River in order to easily dispose of waste. African American migrants into Chicago sought jobs in these industries, but were constrained by discriminatory housing policy which narrowly defined where they could live. These “apartheid zones” of the early 1900s are still visible in the present, African American neighborhoods have spread out around these regions. Hispanics moved into predominantly white, industrial neighborhoods. Regulatory recognition that industrial neighborhoods could be potentially dangerous is a recent occurrence; this recognition altered the way in which proximity to industry was traditionally viewed. The historical understanding of Chicago’s industrial and migration history aids understanding of the empirical results. Table 7 summarizes the results of the tests of Hypothesis 1 and the discussion concerning Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis tests were considered for each category of waste and for possibly affected sub-groups (African American, Hispanic, low income). The results of the test for Hypothesis 1 are straightforward: cannot reject (no contemporaneous injustice) or can reject (contemporaneous injustice). Hypothesis 2 is only discussed in cases where Hypothesis 1 can be rejected. Though no clear test of the unjust siting Hypothesis 2 is possible due to data limitations, the historical evidence is used to determine if rejection of Hypothesis 2 in favor of an ex ante alternative hypothesis of environmental injustice is possible (evidence is insufficient to make judgment) or questionable (unlikely to be true given the historical record). Table 8 summarizes the evidence from the regressions and the historical arguments in terms of the hypotheses of contemporary injustice and unjust siting.Column 2 of Table 8 lists the alternatives (siting/demographic scenarios) most likely to be favored in a test of Hypothesis 2. When Hypothesis 1 is not rejected, Hypothesis 2 is not applicable; if there is no contemporaneous disproportionate exposure of hazardous materials in minority/low income communities, it is not necessary to discuss systematic discriminatory siting. The significant influences upon where sites were located are listed are listed in column 3. Column 4 states whether or not there is evidence for environmental injustice, and if so whether it was more likely injustice in intent or injustice in outcome. There may have been a situation of environmental injustice against the poor in 1960, since neighborhoods containing CERCLIS sites had lower incomes. Because many of the hazards regulated under CERCLA were unknown (CERCLA was written in 1980), it is unlikely people understood the ramifications of living in proximity to industry. A lack of understanding of the threats of industrial effluent, and the desire of immigrant whites to retain jobs by keeping industry in white neighborhoods, probably influenced residential patterns and kept African Americans out of CERCLIS neighborhoods. The difference between African American neighborhoods and the location of CERCLIS sites is clear by comparison of Fig. 2 (African Americans in 1960) and Fig. 3 (CERCLIS sites in 1960). In 1990, however, CERCLIS sites were known to be dangerous. More than 65% of the Chicago CERCLIS sites were sited before 1960, and the bulk of Hispanic immigration took place in the 1960s and 1970s. These circumstances make it probable that Hispanics migrated into neighborhoods where CERCLIS sites were already located. What is not clear is if the hazardousness of these sites was appreciated or not. This pattern suggests that there may be environmental injustice in outcome toward Hispanics. Historically, African Americans were residentially segregated to non-industrial neighborhoods. The current residential pattern of African Americans reflects an expansion from these segregated neighborhoods into geographically larger areas. Yet, the earlier effect remains predominant; African American neighborhoods contain neither a significant number of older industrial sites, nor a preponderance of current industry. Comparison of Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 illustrates these dynamics. Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show that Hispanics and whites live in the same neighborhoods, and that African Americans are segregated from both demographic groups. Fig. 7, compared with Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, shows that CERCLIS and RCRA sites are located among whites and Hispanics on Chicago’s north side and also on the near south side, along the South Branch of the Chicago River. The historical solid waste sites are located primarily on the south side, in the same neighborhoods that are almost exclusively African American.The only clear case where both environmental injustice in intent and injustice in outcome may have taken place involves siting of the 1990 RCRA sites. These sites were located after most of the immigration had occurred. RCRA regulated facilities were sited near Hispanic neighborhoods, though not in the central neighborhoods, nor were they sited near them in great numbers. Inclusion of the historical solid waste disposal sites indicates that the locations of these sites may be a case for environmental injustice in outcome. The key factor that prevents an interpretation of injustice in intent involves the current and historical lack of knowledge about these sites. Since environmental awareness of pollution externalities before 1970 was primarily concerned with offensive odors and the nuisance of municipal waste, it may be that municipal landfills (solid waste disposal sites) were sited in African American communities and that this did follow a pattern of discriminatory intent. Future research should investigate these sites to determine their dates of sitings, and if possible, test Hypothesis 2. Presently, these sites are not considered hazardous under CERCLA. Taken as a whole, these findings indicate that past waste-generating activities tended to be in less populous, lower income areas with good access to highways and waterways. Present waste sites tend to be located in less populous, wealthier neighborhoods, with convenient access to transportation infrastructure. There is no good evidence that African Americans of any income class are more likely to live in areas with more concentrated waste sites in the city of Chicago, or that they have been targeted to be disproportionately exposed to more hazardous waste. Several of the 1990 regressions found that the percentage Hispanic in a community was significant in describing the presence of a site in, or near, a community. The growth of the Hispanic community is a relatively recent event in Chicago’s history. This study indicates that much of this growth has been into areas where there is more concentrated waste in the city, although early Hispanic neighborhoods may have had waste areas located in their vicinities. Understanding the location of waste sites relative to the demographic distribution of Chicago is the first step in doing truly definitive research upon the subject of hazardous waste and its impact upon humans. A thorough understanding of the history and relationship between minorities and hazardous waste can aid us in deciding what parts of environmental public policy should receive primary attention. Environmental health analyses may be aided by the knowledge of which communities are most affected. If a relationship between some waste area and a negative health outcome can be linked, then it is crucial to know which populations are most at risk, to be able to target health policy toward them. Investigation of this complex issue may evoke emotional responses, but the knowledge gained about what populations are most at risk is crucial for the application of efficient, focused public policy. The City of Chicago, like most other American cities, has a rich and complicated history involving ebbs and flows in industry and wealth, in the ethnic and racial composition of their populations, and in patterns of land use. Any or all of these may affect how a waste site came to be located in a given community. Other cities that developed at different times and different locations have different histories and may have different evidence concerning environmental justice. A highly contentious environmental problem such as environmental justice deserves thorough research. The research should conform to sound methodological practices, apply appropriate econometric techniques to the best available data, and be supported by historical context for interpretation of empirical results. Regardless of the region in question, environmental justice is a complex issue that demands extensive and thorough research. The conclusions of this report echo those of its predecessor: we should proceed with caution in applying labels of “fair” and “unfair” to the outcomes produced by complex interactions among economic, social, and historical forces.