Environmental justice, infrastructure provisioning, and environmental impact assessment: Evidence from the California Environmental Quality Act

被引:11
作者
Wang, Jie [1 ]
Ulibarri, Nicola [1 ,4 ]
Scott, Tyler A. [2 ]
Davis, Steven J. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Irvine, Dept Urban Planning & Publ Policy, Irvine, CA USA
[2] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Environm Sci & Policy, Irvine, CA USA
[3] Univ Calif Irvine, Dept Earth Syst Sci, Irvine, CA USA
[4] Univ Calif Irvine, 300 Social Ecol 1, Irvine, CA 92697 USA
关键词
Infrastructure siting; Distributive justice; Environmental impact assessment; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); RACE; DISPARITIES; INEQUALITY; CITIES;
D O I
10.1016/j.envsci.2023.05.003
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a decision support tool that analyzes the environmental and social impacts of infrastructure projects. This paper focuses on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a law requiring EIA use in California, to examine where new infrastructure is proposed and whether EIA can shape infrastructure distribution and environmental justice through the review process. We analyze the temporal and spatial distribution of more than 7000 infrastructure projects and their environmental impacts as proposed under CEQA from 2011 to 2020. Using fixed-effects negative binomial regression to model the association between the number of initiated projects and existing socioeconomic and environmental conditions by census tract, and multinomial logistic regression to investigate determinants of a project's level of environmental review, we find an unequal distribution of infrastructure. We find that socio-economically vulnerable communities and those with greater burden of environmental pollution are less likely to be the site of newly proposed infrastructure, but that proposed projects tend to be beneficial, less-polluting infrastructure like parks or schools that could help redress past injustices. Moreover, projects proposed in vulnerable communities are less likely to receive the most stringent reviews or have their impacts mitigated. These findings suggest that CEQA interacts with distributive justice in contradictory ways. They also highlight the need to separately consider environmental amenities versus harms such that EIA processes do not stand as a barrier to constructing beneficial infrastructure in environmental justice communities.
引用
收藏
页码:66 / 75
页数:10
相关论文
共 60 条
  • [1] Trends and Directions in Environmental Justice: From Inequity to Everyday Life, Community, and Just Sustainabilities
    Agyeman, Julian
    Schlosberg, David
    Craven, Luke
    Matthews, Caitlin
    [J]. ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, VOL 41, 2016, 41 : 321 - 340
  • [2] ASCE, 2021, ANN REPORT 2021 2022, P2021
  • [3] Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia's most populous cities
    Astell-Burt, Thomas
    Feng, Xiaoqi
    Mavoa, Suzanne
    Badland, Hannah M.
    Giles-Corti, Billie
    [J]. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2014, 14
  • [4] Baggett R.K., 2018, Homeland security and critical infrastructure protection
  • [5] Environmental Justice: The Economics of Race, Place, and Pollution
    Banzhaf, Spencer
    Ma, Lala
    Timmins, Christopher
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 2019, 33 (01) : 185 - 208
  • [6] Bass R., 1998, ENVIRON IMPACT ASSES, V18, P83
  • [7] Bian F., 2013, INT S GRMSE 2013 W 1
  • [8] Beyond distribution and participation: A scoping review to advance a comprehensive environmental justice framework for impact assessment
    Blue, Gwendolyn
    Bronson, Kelly
    Lajoie-O'Malley, Alana
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2021, 90
  • [9] Chowkwanyun M., 2022, ANNU REV PUBL HEALTH, V44
  • [10] Value-driven SEA: time for an environmental justice perspective?
    Connelly, S
    Richardson, T
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2005, 25 (04) : 391 - 409