The Demographics of Dumping Revisited: Examining the Impact of Alternate Methodologies in Environmental Justice Research
By Paul Mohai
INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1980s, people of color have increasingly mobilized to combat toxic threats in their communities. Research pertaining to the distribution of the burdens of environmental hazards and locally unwanted land uses based on race and class has also been increasing. Nearly all of the studies over the past two decades have found that environmental hazards under investigation are inequitably distributed according to race or income or both. Where it has been possible to weigh the relative importance of race and income, race has tended to be the better predictor of the location of environmental hazards.
Among these studies, perhaps the most famous is the study sponsored by the United Church of Christ's Commission for Racial Justice in 1987. It was the first national study to examine the distribution of commercial hazardous waste facilities and abandoned hazardous waste sites by race and income. This study found that the percentage of minority residents in communities, defined by zip code areas, containing a commercial hazardous waste facility was twice as great as the percentage of minority residents in communities not containing a facility (24% versus 12%). Furthermore, it found that the minority percentage in communities containing two or more facilities or containing one of the nation's five largest landfills was three times greater (38%). From a multivariate statistical analysis, the study found that race was the best predictor of the location of these facilities from among other factors examined. This study has been influential in motivating further research into the distribution of environmental hazards by income and race and has greatly contributed to the mobilization of the environmental justice movement.
Recently, a study conducted at the University of Massachusetts (UMass) has challenged the findings and conclusions of the United Church of Christ (UCC) report. In contrast to the United Church of Christ study, this study found little difference in the minority percentages of areas containing hazardous waste facilities and those without. This disagreement is significant since both studies examined the distribution of commercial hazardous waste facilities and both are national in scope. That two national studies examining the distribution of the same type of facility should lead to different findings and conclusions raises the obvious question of “Why?”. One way to approach this problem is to examine their respective methodologies to see if differences in methodological approaches led to differences in the findings. If so, what specifically accounts for the differences in the findings? Is one methodological approach more appropriate than another? How important is the selection of methodological approaches in uncovering the depth of the environmental justice problem?
In order to answer these questions, this paper examines the respective methodologies of the UCC and UMass studies. In a recent update to the 1987 UCC study, Goldman and Fitton have already noted several of the key differences between the two studies. The present article expands the list of key methodological differences and identifies the consequences of these differences on the findings. The purpose of this analysis is not only to reconcile the differences in the findings of the two studies but also to illuminate how various methodological approaches and the interpretation of data obtained from these approaches can lead towards or away from definitive understandings about the distribution of pollution, locally unwanted land uses, and other environmental hazards. This paper will also offer proposals on how methodologies might be improved in order to arrive at the most meaningful understanding of the extent and depth of inequities in the distribution of such hazards.
Since the early 1980s, people of color have increasingly mobilized to combat toxic threats in their communities. Research pertaining to the distribution of the burdens of environmental hazards and locally unwanted land uses based on race and class has also been increasing. Nearly all of the studies over the past two decades have found that environmental hazards under investigation are inequitably distributed according to race or income or both. Where it has been possible to weigh the relative importance of race and income, race has tended to be the better predictor of the location of environmental hazards.
Among these studies, perhaps the most famous is the study sponsored by the United Church of Christ's Commission for Racial Justice in 1987. It was the first national study to examine the distribution of commercial hazardous waste facilities and abandoned hazardous waste sites by race and income. This study found that the percentage of minority residents in communities, defined by zip code areas, containing a commercial hazardous waste facility was twice as great as the percentage of minority residents in communities not containing a facility (24% versus 12%). Furthermore, it found that the minority percentage in communities containing two or more facilities or containing one of the nation's five largest landfills was three times greater (38%). From a multivariate statistical analysis, the study found that race was the best predictor of the location of these facilities from among other factors examined. This study has been influential in motivating further research into the distribution of environmental hazards by income and race and has greatly contributed to the mobilization of the environmental justice movement.
Recently, a study conducted at the University of Massachusetts (UMass) has challenged the findings and conclusions of the United Church of Christ (UCC) report. In contrast to the United Church of Christ study, this study found little difference in the minority percentages of areas containing hazardous waste facilities and those without. This disagreement is significant since both studies examined the distribution of commercial hazardous waste facilities and both are national in scope. That two national studies examining the distribution of the same type of facility should lead to different findings and conclusions raises the obvious question of “Why?”. One way to approach this problem is to examine their respective methodologies to see if differences in methodological approaches led to differences in the findings. If so, what specifically accounts for the differences in the findings? Is one methodological approach more appropriate than another? How important is the selection of methodological approaches in uncovering the depth of the environmental justice problem?
In order to answer these questions, this paper examines the respective methodologies of the UCC and UMass studies. In a recent update to the 1987 UCC study, Goldman and Fitton have already noted several of the key differences between the two studies. The present article expands the list of key methodological differences and identifies the consequences of these differences on the findings. The purpose of this analysis is not only to reconcile the differences in the findings of the two studies but also to illuminate how various methodological approaches and the interpretation of data obtained from these approaches can lead towards or away from definitive understandings about the distribution of pollution, locally unwanted land uses, and other environmental hazards. This paper will also offer proposals on how methodologies might be improved in order to arrive at the most meaningful understanding of the extent and depth of inequities in the distribution of such hazards.