Search results

Across the USA, local municipalities and providers struggle to reliably supply water and electricity when faced with severe weather events induced by climate change. Previous research suggests those at higher risk for experiencing the detrimental effects of climate change have higher climate-related concerns. Additionally, research demonstrates variation in trust in institutions and perceptions of environmental justice along racial lines, which can influence concern for access to resources. Informed by this research, the authors ask two questions: how do Oklahomans’ trust in institutions, environmental justice perceptions and global climate change risk perceptions differ based on race, and how do these factors influence concern for water and electrical infrastructure? The purpose of this study is to better understand Oklahomans’ trust in information from institutions, environmental justice perceptions, global climate change risk perceptions and concern for water and electrical infrastructure.

This study uses a series of nested regression models to analyze the survey responses of 2,687 Oklahoman adults. The data were pulled from Wave 3 of the Oklahoma Meso-scale Integrated Socio-geographic Network survey, which is part of the National Science Foundation EPSCoR S3OK project.

The findings demonstrate the complex interplay of riskscapes – or risk landscapes – that encompass institutional trust, perceptions of environmental justice, climate change and infrastructure in Oklahoma. The authors find evidence that education and income are better predictors of institutional trust and environmental justice than race among our respondents. Political ideology emerges as a significant predictor across all hypotheses.

This study contributes to the understanding of complex dynamics involving race, perceptions of environmental justice, trust in information from institutions, risk perceptions of climate change and concerns for water and electrical infrastructure in Oklahoma.

The purpose of the study is to review some of the existing gaps in the third-generation of critical environmental justice (EJ) research and then propose promising combinations of theoretical concepts by adjoining (EJ) literature with other bodies of work with the use of qualitative research methods.

This paper is a critique of the third-generation of critical EJ literature. It demonstrates how the scope of this scholarship, particularly the third world EJ studies, can be expanded further by deploying various combinations of other theories and qualitative research methods.

Conceptually, this paper provides insights into the new directions that third world EJ theory can take by drawing from other bodies of work including the developmental state, caste, waste, informal sector and labor studies within its fold. Methodologically, the paper shows why and how qualitative research methods including single and multiple case study, participatory action research and ethnography can assist in developing these new integrations between theories.

This research calls for the need to conduct studies in each of the new research dimension suggested in this paper in novel empirical spaces. Such studies will enable the practice of EJ and will help to advance the field of EJ scholarship forward.

Analysis of new research combinations with qualitative research methods in new empirical spaces might create scope for practicing EJ in such spaces where various forms of environmental injustices prevail.

This paper identifies gaps in the third-generation of critical EJ research and proposes new research directions by combining other theories and qualitative methods.

The purpose of this paper is to draw upon concepts in community‐oriented policing in order to explore the distribution of citizen water‐monitoring organizations and their role in community environmental policing, in order to address the issue of environmental justice. The empirical portion of the analysis examines the distribution of these organizations across states, and the relationship of this distribution to social inequity.

This study design is cross‐sectional in nature and examines the distribution and density of 1,308 citizen water‐monitoring organizations across states. Ordinary least squares regression is used to examine the relationship between the density and social disadvantage while controlling for environmental enforcement patterns, rates of non‐compliance, water quality, region of the country, water area, and coastal states.

Race and ethnicity are negatively correlated with the density of water‐monitoring organizations across states. Median household income is positively correlated with water‐monitoring organizations across states.

This paper suggests that community environmental policing is a response to ecological disorganization. More specifically, in the case of citizen‐led water‐monitoring organizations it is critical that states with relatively large proportions of low income, black and Hispanic residents help provide resources to encourage the development of these community groups.

This paper is the first to draw upon the ideas found in the community‐oriented policing literature to examine water‐monitoring organizations. While the literature suggests that collaborative efforts between state law enforcement agencies and water‐monitoring organizations may help combat ecological disorganization, it is also the first study to suggest that environmental injustice could be an unintended drawback of community environmental policing.

Research shows that the physical locations of correctional facilities often contribute to environmental hazards. Research also shows that correctional facilities are often sited near hazardous or undesirable land(s). In combination, incarcerated individuals may be at increased risk of experiencing negative health consequences because of exposure to various environmental harms. This is especially alarming as incarcerated individuals lack the capacity to decide where they are detained. In these cases, health issues that may have developed while detained may extend beyond incarceration. Furthermore, incarcerated individuals are not protected by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice policies.

Using a case study approach, the authors examine two specific correctional facilities in the USA to not only demonstrate the various environmental harms that incarcerated individuals encounter but also highlight carceral spaces as sites of environmental violations.

Additionally, the authors address the negative health consequences incarcerated individuals report because of exposure to these harms. They also argue that creating safer communities requires more than reducing crime and preventing criminal victimization. Creating safer communities also includes promoting environmental safety and protection from hazards that cause sickness and disease.

This work contributes to an emerging and growing body of literature that examines the intersection of carceral studies and environmental justice.

At a time when the US federal government failed to act on climate change, California's success as a subnational climate policy leader has been widely celebrated. However, California's landmark climate law drove a wedge between two segments of the state's environmental community. On one side was a coalition of “market-oriented” environmental social movement organizations (SMOs), who allied with private corporations to advance market-friendly climate policy. On the other side was a coalition of “justice-oriented” environmental SMOs, who viewed capitalist markets as the problem and sought climate policy that would mitigate the uneven distribution of environmental harms within the state. The social movement literature is not well equipped to understand this case, in which coalitional politics helped one environmental social movement succeed in its policy objectives at the expense of another. In this chapter, we draw on legislative and regulatory texts, archival material, and interviews with relevant political actors to compare the policymaking influence of each of these coalitions, and we argue that the composition of the two coalitions is the key to understanding why one was more successful than the other. At the same time, we point out the justice-oriented coalition's growing power, as market-oriented SMOs seek to preserve their legitimacy.

This paper aims to explore what environmental justice (EJ) can offer to sport management research and highlights the urgency for sport management scholars interested in environmental and ecological issues to engage with EJ as an important research agenda.

This paper is primarily a position and conceptual paper. Drawing from multidisciplinary literature (e.g. critical human geography, environmental sociology, Indigenous studies and postcolonial studies), it provides an overview of the major conceptualizations of EJ and discusses important premises for sport management researchers to engage with EJ topics.

EJ offers opportunities for sport management researchers to form stronger analyses on existing racial, socio-economic, and gender-related inequities manifest in the sport industry. The incorporation of EJ can strengthen the emerging sport ecology research in sport management and offer opportunities for sport management researchers to form stronger analyses on existing racial, class and gender-related inequities manifest in the sport industry.

It provides a critical and original intervention to the sport management literature. EJ's emphasis on power and its position at the convergence of social movements, public policy, and scholarship hold important potential for sport management researchers to advance scholarship with “actions,” addressing environmental harms and seeking practical solutions for enhancing communities' well-being.

Purpose – State and national environmental justice (EJ) programs have expanded in recent years to address new risks and challenges. Several programs including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Justice Small Grants (EJSG) program have helped to facilitate this growth. Since 1994, more than 1,000 small grants have been awarded through the EJSG to support communities in developing solutions to local environmental and public health problems. This chapter evaluates the collective impact of these investments.

Design/methodology/approach – Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map the locations of EJSG funds relative to data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), this chapter addresses two main questions. First, are grants being awarded to the types of communities (low-income, minority areas facing major environmental hazards) intended to be served by the program? Second, have there been any significant environmental changes in EJSG areas since the start of the program?

Findings – Results of county-level spatial analysis reveal that EJ grants are only in part being awarded to minority or low-income counties facing higher than the national average TRI releases and that average toxic releases have increased significantly in EJSG counties in some EPA regions relative to non-EJSG counties.

Originality/value – These results and the novel application of mapping methods to tracking small grants allocations highlight the need for systematic EJ program evaluation and coordination.

This chapter chronicles some of the early years of the author growing up in the racially segregated South Alabama and its influence on his thinking about race, environment, social equity, and government responsibility and his journey to becoming an environmental sociologist, scholar, and activist. Using an environmental justice paradigm, he uncovers the underlying assumptions that contribute to and produce unequal protection. The environmental justice paradigm provides a useful framework for examining and explaining the spatial relation between the health of marginalized populations and their built and natural environment, and government response to natural and man-made disasters in African American communities. Clearly, people of color communities have borne a disproportionate burden and have received differential treatment from government in its response to health threats such as childhood lead poisoning, toxic waste and contamination, industrial accidents, hurricanes, floods and related weather-related disasters, and a host of other man-made disasters. The chapter brings to the surface the ethical and political questions of “who gets what, why, and how much” and why some communities get left behind before and after disasters strike.