Gaps Matter: Environment, Health, and Social Equity

By Manuel Pastor and Rachel Morello-Frosch

In recent years, public health advocates and researchers have promoted the idea that in­­equality is not just morally distasteful, but also potentially damaging to overall health and well-being. Among the most compelling advocates of this position have been Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, who laid out the scientific evidence and policy implications in their book, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. The authors argue that it is not only economic shortfalls such as poverty that impact health, but also the degree of inequality in the distribution of income and wealth that affects health, particularly in wealthier societies (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2011).
A parallel argument has evolved in eco­nomics, a field long associated with the notion of an efficiency-equity trade-off rather than an efficiency-equity complementarity. Econo­mists at the International Monetary Fund have found that initial disparity in the distribution of income and assets is the factor most significantly associated with the inability to sustain growth over time (Berg, Ostry, and Zettelmeyer, 2012). Economists looking at metropolitan regions in the United States have offered similar findings of the relationship between inequality and eco­nomic performance, suggesting that tackling unequal opportunity for some could have broad benefits for all (Benner and Pastor, 2015).
An emerging frontier in this new work involves examining the relationship between social inequality and environmental degrada­tion. Specifically, social inequality in exposures to environmental hazards can erode overall environmental conditions for everyone. For ex­­ample, when low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately exposed to harmful pollution (in air and water, for example), pollution can be viewed by those not in that community as someone else’s prob­lem. This then can result in a decline in the pub­lic and political will to implement environmental policies that reduce overall pollution exposure levels and protect community health (Boyce et al., 1999). While still nascent, this new research suggests that environmental inequality can reduce environmental quality.
What Is Environmental Inequality?
Environmental inequality refers to the tendency for environmental disamenities to be dispropor­tionately located in low-income communities of color. This long-standing concern gained national traction because of 1982 protests against the placement of a hazardous waste landfill in War­ren County, North Carolina, one of the poorest counties with the greatest proportion of African American residents in the state (McGurty, 2000). The protests prompted the first nationwide study of environmental disparities in the location of treatment storage and disposal facilities, which in turn led to a new wave of research by govern­ment agencies and academic scholars (United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice 1987; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1983).
By 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order mandating that federal govern­ment agencies (including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], the National Institutes of Health, and the departments of Interior and Energy) consider the potential disparate environ­mental burdens of their programs and enforce­ment activities on low-income communities and people of color (Bullard, 1996).
Despite methodological challenges raised in response to some of the earliest research demon­strating disparities (Anderton et al., 1994; Mohai and Saha, 2006), the weight of the evidence and improvements in statistical and spatial tech­niques indicate patterns of environmental ineq­uities by race, income, and other socioeconomic factors (including measures of civic participa­tion). The patterns of race- and class-based dis­parities in exposures to environmental hazards are something we might expect given the nature of localized sources of pollution and the per­sistence of residential segregation by race and income. However, it is important to note that the pattern of environmental disparity seems more pronounced by race than by income, a trend that suggests that inequalities are not merely a func­tion of market forces or of wealth, but also are due to structural racism and its interaction with power over processes of permitting decisions and the siting of toxic facilities (Hamilton, 1995; Pulido, 2000; Ringquist, 2005).
These deeply embedded environmental inequalities have adverse impacts on health, and much of the research has validated the concerns of community organizers worried about local environmental health issues (Morello-Frosch and Jesdale, 2006; Pastor, Sadd, and Morello-Frosch, 2004). Vibrant campaigns have sought to pressure decision makers to address the health effects on local residents of large industrial facil­ities—such as refineries, chemical plants, and traffic and truck-related air pollution—and the risks associated with living near landfills and hazardous waste processors (Cole and Foster, 2001; Matsuoka et al., 2011). Advocates also have broadened their demands to include not just relief from environmental “bads” but also equal access to environmental “goods,” such as green space, fresh food, and better, affordable public transit (Pastor, Auer, and Wander, 2012).
This mobilization for environmental jus­tice, however, can be seen as a special-interest demand, one focused on addressing disparities rather than on improving overall environmental quality. Environmental justice concerns about California’s cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were dismissed as a sideshow from the main task of addressing cli­mate change (London et al., 2013). Yet, climate change policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can yield significant public health ben­efits by also reducing emissions of hazardous co-pollutants, such as air toxics and particulate matter. Socioeconomically disadvantaged com­munities are typically disproportionately ex­­­posed to these air pollutants, and therefore climate pol­icy could also potentially reduce these environ­mental inequities.
For that reason, some economists and envi­ronmental justice advocates argue that effi­cient climate regulation requires deeper GHG reductions in areas where the health benefits of reducing co-pollutants are likely to be great­est, and that this objective cannot be accom­plished with the geographically unrestricted trading characteristic of cap-and-trade, in which all GHG reductions are treated equally, regard­less of location. In this case, revising specific policies to alleviate environmental burdens on disproportionately affected groups can address climate change goals and enhance short-term public health benefits. So while the equity case is strong, social movement and policy advocacy frames to address injustice can also be embed­ded in a broader set of concerns.
Does Inequality Make a Difference?
So what is the relationship between environ­mental inequality and environmental quality? Just as the need to articulate this has become more pressing in the environmental justice advo­cacy space, a new wave of research is offering an interesting analog to earlier research on the relationship between inequality and economic growth or public health. In one article, “Is Environmental Justice Good for White Folks?” economist Michael Ash and colleagues look at the modeled distribution of risks from facilities required to report annual pollutant emissions to the EPA (Ash et al., 2012). Looking at met­ropolitan areas, they found that those regions where average exposures are distributed more unequally by race or ethnicity also have higher average exposures associated with ambient emissions for all population subgroups, includ­­ing for whites.
Other research has found similar links between social inequality and environmen­tal quality measures that can affect health and well-being, particularly in U.S. metropolitan areas. These studies include positive associa­tions between racial residential segregation and higher exposures to cancer-causing ambient air toxics (Morello-Frosch and Jesdale, 2006) and noise exposure (Casey et al., 2017a); and the relationship between neighborhood poverty concentration and lack of green space (Casey et al., 2017b).
While the reasons are not entirely clear, this work generally echoes our political will argu­ment above: more unequal metropolitan regions may experience a diminished collective public will to regulate and reduce pollution emissions overall, or to invest in improving green infra­structure, like urban forestry, parks, and other green spaces.
One intriguing experiment tried to directly explore the role of social cohesion in public will to address common environmental challenges. Participants were asked to play a game in which they started off with different sums of money and were asked to contribute to a public fund to prevent climate change. As it turns out, inequali­ties in the initial endowments of money did not impede collective action on climate change if it was thought that everyone would be affected by climate change. However, when told that the risks of harm from climate disaster were greater for low-income participants, wealthier partici­pants in the game became less willing to part with their cash and more willing to let the planet warm (Burton-Chellew, May, and West, 2013).
Evidence and Public Will
While a recent review suggests that environmen­tal inequality does have some impact on envi­ronmental quality—the research is just emerging and there are clear caveats to overgeneralization (Cushing et al., 2015). For example, the negative impact of social and environmental disparities on environmental conditions is more consistent in “within-country” studies than in research comparing across countries, perhaps because it is too hard to control for differing political (and data collection) systems. In addition, the direc­tion of causality—perhaps the higher overall pollution levels drive the disparities rather than the other way around—is not entirely settled by much of this ecological and cross-sectional empirical work.
Still, continuing to explore the relationship between environmental inequality and over­all environmental conditions could enhance our understanding about the causal relation­ship between social inequality and environmen­tal health. While more research is necessary, the mounting evidence that inequality has a drag­ging effect on public health, the economy, and the environment suggests that policy advocates and others have ample reason to be bold about emphasizing equity concerns.
There is another reason to push concerns about environmental justice: while the general stereotype is that whites who tend to be more well off may be more concerned about the envi­ronment than other groups, polling in California suggests that African Americans, Latinos, and Asians are more positively inclined to see cli­mate change as a serious issue and want author­ities to address it (Baldassare et al., 2015). For those wanting stronger action on the environ­ment, it is important to be clear about which constituencies will be willing to fight hardest for change.
Research and policy advocacy could benefit from a dimension of central concern to the read­ers of this journal: age. Older adults are mark­edly different than the young, not just in age, but also demographically, which can affect public will around policy change. The “racial genera­tion gap”—the difference between the percent­age of older adults who are non-Hispanic white versus the percentage of young people who are non-Hispanic white—has been shown to have an impact on collective investments in public education: the bigger the gap (controlling for all other factors that explain levels of local spending on education), the lower the per-student invest­ment (Pastor, Scoggins, and Treuhaft, 2017).
According to projections, the racial genera­tion gap is now at a peak in the United States, perhaps explaining some of our polarized national politics, including around the accep­tance (and lack thereof) about the reality of cli­mate change. Interestingly, one state where the racial generation gap long ago peaked (in the 1990s) and has since been shrinking—Califor­nia—is also leading the nation on addressing sustainability and environmental justice. How­ever, with the evidence of global warming being increasingly obvious, our nation cannot wait for demographic change to steer it toward a com­mon understanding of environmental challenges. A bigger and broader movement must be built—one that can forge ties across groups, genera­tions, and geographies; to do this, America needs to wed the concerns of climate change and cli­mate justice. Solid research on the linkage has a role to play.
Making Change Happen
As researchers, we have been documenting envi­ronmental disparities since the early 1990s—one of us as an intrepid and focused graduate student and the other as, frankly, a less directly inter­ested and somewhat scattered professor. For the latter, the path to studying environmental justice was not particularly intentional; a few under­graduate assistants wanted to work on the topic and produced a solid paper that, with some guid­ance, landed in one of the best journals in the field (Boer et al., 1997). Immediately tagged as an expert, the professor soon attracted the atten­tion of the grad student–turned post-doc, and a partnership was born.
Together with our long-time colleague, James Sadd, we also attracted the attention of a variety of community organizers who wanted to move the policy needle on environmental disparities and found our research helpful. What we learned working with them and with decision makers was the way in which the envi­ronmental movement had managed to advance claims of universal rights that had eluded other arenas of social justice. When decision makers and the general public heard that children of color were subjected to worse air, there was an immediate desire to do something to cor­rect the tragedy, mostly because they saw the environment as part of the “commons” to be enjoyed by everyone in equal measure. On the other hand, when they heard that those exact same children were exposed to worse schools, over-policing, and over-criminalization, con­cerns were more muted.
Part of the reason we have worked on en­­vironmental justice is that we care about the environment and the communities that find themselves overexposed and socially vulner­able. But another factor has been the hope that this work would provide a path to help others to understand the ways in which structural rac­ism and other forms of inequality affect and limit human possibilities at every step in the life tra­jectory. In short, advancing environmental sus­tainability is critical to the future of the planet, but the arc of progress must also bend toward justice and equity in order to build collective will for the social and environmental change that is necessary to get us there.
It is our hope that the emerging body of work across the fields of economics, sociology, and environmental health will contribute to an understanding of how “toxic inequality” hurts our economy, our environment, and our well-being (Shapiro, 2017). No society this unequal can function at peak performance. Indeed, the evidence points to the fact that ultimately we are in this together and must work collaboratively toward a more prosperous, sustainable, and 
equitable planet.
Manuel Pastor, Ph.D., is professor of Sociology and director of the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at the University of Southern Cali­fornia, where he holds the Turpanjian Chair in Civil Society and Social Change. Rachel Morello-Frosch, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Envi­ron­mental Science, Policy, and Management, and in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley.
Anderton, D. L., et al. 1994. “Environmental Equity: The Demographics of Dumping.” Demography 31(2): 229–48.
Ash, M., et al. 2012. “Is Environ­mental Justice Good for White Folks? Industrial Air Toxics Expo­sure in Urban America.” Social Sci­ence Quarterly 94(3): 1–21.
Baldassare, M., et al. 2015. PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of Califor­nia. Retrieved February 1, 2018.
Benner, C., and Pastor, M. 2015. “Brother, Can You Spare Some Time? Sustaining Prosperity and Social Inclusion in America’s Met­ropolitan Regions.” Urban Studies 52(7): 1339–56.
Berg, A., Ostry, J. D., and Zettel­meyer, J. 2012. “What Makes Growth Sustained?” Journal of Development Economics 98(2): 
Boer, T. J. 1997. “Is There Environ­mental Racism? The Demographics of Hazardous Waste in Los Ange­les County.” Social Science Quar­terly 78(4): 793–810.
Boyce, J. K., et al. 1999. “Power Distribution, the Environment, and Public Health: A State-level Analysis.” Ecological Economics 29(1): 127–40.
Bullard, R. D. 1996. Unequal Pro­tection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color. San Fran­cisco: Sierra Club Books.
Burton-Chellew, M. N., May, R. M., and West, S. A. 2013. “Combined Inequality in Wealth and Risk Leads to Disaster in the Climate Change Game.” Climatic Change 120: 815–30.
Casey, J. A., et al. 2017a. “Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, Residential Segregation, and Spa­tial Variation in Noise Exposure in the Contiguous United States.” Environmental Health Perspectives 125(7). Retrieved January 21, 2018.
Casey, J. A., et al. 2017b. “Race, Ethnicity, Income Concentra­tion and 10-year Change in Urban Greenness in the United States.” International Journal of Environ­mental Research and Public Health 14(12): 1546.
Cole, L. W., and Foster, S. R. 2001. From the Ground Up: Environmen­tal Racism and the Rise of the Envi­ronmental Justice Movement. New York: New York University Press.
Cushing, L., et al. 2015. “The Haves, the Have-nots, and the Health of Everyone: The Relation­ship Between Social Inequality and Environmental Quality.” Annual Review of Public Health 
36: 193–209.
Hamilton, J. T. 1995. “Testing for Environmental Racism: Prejudice, Profits, Political Power?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 14(1): 107–32.
London, J., et al. 2013. “Racing Climate Change: Collaboration and Conflict in California’s Global Climate Change Policy Arena.” Global Environmental Change 23(4): 791–9.
Matsuoka, M., et al. 2011. Global Trade Impacts: Addressing the Health, Social and Environmental Consequences of Moving Interna­tional Freight Through Our Com­munities. Los Angeles: Occidental College and University of Southern California.
McGurty, E. M. 2000. “War­ren County, N.C., and the Emer­gence of the Environmental Jus­tice Movement: Unlikely Coalitions and Shared Meanings in Local Col­lective Action.” Society & Natural Resources 13(4): 373–87.
Mohai, P., and Saha, R. 2006. “Reassessing Racial and Socioeco­nomic Disparities in Environmen­tal Justice Research.” Demography 43(2): 383–99.
Morello-Frosch, R., and Jesdale, 
B. M. 2006. “Separate and Unequal: Residential Segregation and Esti­mated Cancer Risks Associated with Ambient Air Toxics in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” Environ­mental Health Perspectives 114(3): 386–93.
Pastor, M., Auer, M., and Wander, M. 2012. Advancing Environmen­tal Justice Through Sustainability Planning. University of Southern California: Program for Environ­mental and Regional Equity.
Pastor, M., Sadd, J. L., and Morello-Frosch, R. 2004. “Reading, Writ­ing, and Toxics: Children’s Health, Academic Performance, and Envi­ronmental Justice in Los Angeles.” Environment and Planning C: Gov­ernment and Policy 22(2): 271–90.
Pastor, M., Scoggins, J., and Treu­haft, S. 2017. America’s Divides by Race and Age Place Our Economic Future at Risk: States and Coun­ties with Large “Racial Generation Gaps” Invest Less in Public Educa­tion. Oakland, CA: PolicyLink.
Pulido, L. 2000. “Rethinking Envi­ronmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in South­ern California.” Annals of the Asso­ciation of American Geographers 90(1): 12–40.
Ringquist, E. J. 2005. “Assessing Evidence of Environmental Ineq­uities: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24(2): 223–47.
Shapiro, T. M. 2017. Toxic Inequal­ity: How America’s Wealth Gap Destroys Mobility, Deepens the Racial Divide, and Threatens Our Future (1st ed.). New York: Basic Books.
United Church of Christ Com­mission for Racial Justice. 1987. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Char­acteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. New York: United Church of Christ Commis­sion for Racial Justice.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1983. Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correla­tion with Racial and Economic Sta­tus of Surrounding Communities. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wilkinson, R. G., and Pickett, K. 2011. The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press.