Environmental Justice

In 1994, President Clinton signed the "Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” requiring all federal agencies to engage local communities in developing environmental policies that affected the health of their neighborhoods.  The goal was to ensure that poor and minority communities enjoyed equal protection from environmental hazards—at least that was the plan.  

It should surprise no one that the poor have often been relegated to the least desirable places to live, but in the 1980s minority communities began complaining that they bore a disproportionate share of the environmental hazards resulting from infrastructure projects.  Historically these projects had been developed by teams of experts who conducted impact studies and analyzed the potential long-term effects of environmental changes, but these experts seemed too often willing to sacrifice the welfare of the few for the enrichment of the majority.

In response, the environmental justice movement arose to give poor and minority communities a voice in civil planning.  Reformers argued that the people living in low income neighborhoods would be better able to identify the needs of their communities and to advocate on their own behalf.  However, the reformers often failed to provide these communities with the resources needed to research the health effects and environmental impacts of proposed projects.

For example, environmental action has traditionally focused on large, single point polluters like factories of waste treatment facilities, which are the primary sources of pollution in rural and suburban areas.  However, most air-borne pollution in urban areas comes from car exhaust and diesel burning engines used in construction and shipping, and low income communities are often located near commuter roads and transportation hubs.  Numerous studies have documented the health risks associated with high density traffic, but these studies are often found in academic and professional journals that are not readily available to the general public. 

A study in southern New England found that pregnant women in areas of high density traffic are more likely to give birth to underweight babies than mothers in neighboring suburban communities.  Several studies have shown that rates of childhood asthma increase significantly when schools are located near major commuter roads.  Minority communities are particularly hard hit: studies in New York and Chicago found that residents of poor black communities were four to five times more likely to die from asthma than the average for those cities and three times more likely to be at high risk of cancer from vehicle exhausts.  

A Department of Transportation "success" story that put a

community center, a playground and an athletic field within

500 feet of a major highway

Steps can be taken to address the harmful effects of high density traffic.  Emission standards have reduced pollution from car exhaust—especially in the case or air-borne lead.  High volume traffic can be routed away from residential areas, and schools and playgrounds can be located away from major commuter roads.  Traffic lights can be sequenced to reduce idling at intersections.  However, nothing will be done unless the people involved are aware of the problem.

As a result, community involvement in transportation projects has generally focused on access to public transportation, jobs and community services.  Public transportation facilities have been designed with culturally sensitive artwork and architecture, but these facilities are still served by diesel burning buses—while wealthier suburbs are accessed by electric rail.