Search

The number of studies examining racial and socioeconomic disparities in the geographic distribution of environmental hazards and locally unwanted land uses has grown considerably over the past decade. Most studies have found statistically significant racial and socioeconomic disparities associated with hazardous sites. However there is considerable variation in the magnitude of racial and socioeconomic disparities found; indeed, some studies have found none. Uncertainties also exist about the underlying causes of the disparities. Many of these uncertainties can be attributed to the failure of the most widely used method for assessing environmental disparities to adequately account for proximity between the hazard under investigation and nearby residential populations. In this article, we identify the reasons for and consequences of this failure and demonstrate ways of overcoming these shortcomings by using alternate, distance-based methods. Through the application of such methods, we show how assessments about the magnitude and causes of racial and socioeconomic disparities in the distribution of hazardous sites are changed. In addition to research on environmental inequality, we discuss how distance-based methods can be usefully applied to other areas of demographic research that explore the effects of neighborhood context on a range of social outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical inactivity contributes to a growing proportion of premature mortality and morbidity in the United States, and the last decade has been the focus of calls for action. Analysis of 340 residents of New Jersey found that 15%20% reported multiple problems with using their immediate neighborhoods for physical activity. These respondents were disproportionately African Americans living in neighborhoods that they regard as only of fair or poor quality. Neighborhood walkability isa second-wave environmental justice issue meriting carefully designed research and ameliorative actions in concert with other neighborhood-level redevelopment activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A difficult problem facing states with significant commercial hazardous waste treatment and disposal capacity is the inflow of waste into the state for disposal. The states with commercial capacity allege that other states are reluctant to aggressively pursue siting facilities, and in fact may be impeding development through restrictive siting provisions. Likewise, capacity states are frustrated with the Environmental Protection Agency for its perceived inaction in reviewing state siting standards. Equity discussion abounds at the state level. Capacity states hoped that equity would be elevated to federal debate through Section 104(k) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. I examine equity and review hazardous waste management in a federalism context to discern the relationship between EPA and the states. I focus on the different roles EPA and the states perceived for the other during implementation of Section 104(k). I conclude with an evaluation of how equity was handled under the new legislation and what remains to be done. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments on the award of the Environmental Protection Agency for a five year cooperative agreement to the University of Washington to form a center for environmental statistics in the U.S. Organization of several workshops and conferences in the center; List of overall members of the center; Introduction of a new approach for the identification of seasonal sources of air pollution.

The article reports on the U.S. Congress legislative bill concerning the protection of coral reefs, damaged by divers, pollution and climate change in the U.S. The bill, Tropical Forest and Coral Conservation Act of 2007, would cancel foreign debt in developing countries in exchange for coral reef and rainforest conservation. U.S. Congress passed a similar bill in 1998 that has channelled $137 million to protect rainforests in developing countries such as Panama, Bangladesh and Botswana. Under the deal, countries in debt to the U.S. Agency for International Development give money to local conservation groups. In return, the U.S. cancels the same amount of debt.