| Literature DB >> 9236281 |
.
Abstract
/ Why are some environmental risks distributed disproportionately in the neighborhoods of the minorities and the poor? A hypothesis was proposed in a recent study that market dynamics contributed to the current environmental inequity. That is, locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) make the host communities home to more poor people and people of color. This hypothesis was allegedly supported by a Houston case study, whereby its author analyzed the postsiting changes of the socioeconomic characteristics of the neighborhoods surrounding solid waste facilities. I argue that such an analysis of postsiting changes alone is insufficient to test the causation hypothesis. Instead, I propose a conceptual framework for analysis of environmental equity dynamics and causation. I suggest that the presiting neighborhood dynamics and the characteristics of control neighborhoods be analyzed as the first test for the causation hypothesis. Furthermore, I present theories of neighborhood change and then examine alternative hypotheses that these theories offer for explaining neighborhood changes and for the roles of LULUs in neighborhood changes. These alternative hypotheses should be examined when analyzing the relationship between LULUs and neighborhood changes in a metropolitan area. Using this framework of analysis, I revisited the Houston case. First, I found no evidence that provided support for the hypothesis that the presence of LULUs made the neighborhoods home to more blacks and poor people, contrary to the conclusion made by the previous study. Second, I examined alternative hypotheses for explaining neighborhood changes-invasion-succession, other push forces, and neighborhood life-cycle; the former two might offer better explanation.KEY WORDS: Environmental equity and justice; Locally unwanted lane uses; Siting; Market dynamics; Invasion-succession; Neighborhood changesEntities:
Year: 1997 PMID: 9236281 DOI: 10.1007/s002679900057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Manage ISSN: 0364-152X Impact factor: 3.266