This manuscript presents a comprehensive and flexible approach for quantitatively evaluating environmental justice in the provision of spatially distributed public goods. The approach is used to assess baseline spatial aspects of environmental justice in Hudson County, New Jersey and how it changes with the creation of a new park. The analysis quantitatively evaluates changes in environmental justice fusing a statistically estimated recreation preference function to a neighborhood-level, spatially-distributed population and set of parks. The reliance on a preference function estimated from behavioral data, application of preferences to quantify satisfaction, and explicit quantitative connection between the local population and recreation opportunities represent a significant improvement over the ad hoc and rule-of-thumb approaches that are currently common practice for evaluating environmental justice. Given the recognized importance of measuring outcome improvements, it is expected that the widespread application of this approach will ultimately lead to a general improvement in environmental justice.
References
[1]
Agimass, F., Lundhede, T., Panduro, T. E., & Jacobsen, J. B. (2017). The Choice of Forest Site for Recreation: A Revealed Preference Analysis Using Spatial Data. Ecosystem Services, 31, 445-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.016
[2]
Banzhaf, S. (2012). The Political Economy of Environmental Justice. Stanford University Press.
[3]
Bingham, M. F., Li, Z., Mathews, K. E., Spagnardi, C. M., Whaley, J. S., Veale, S. G. et al. (2011). An Application of Behavioral Modeling to Characterize Urban Angling Decisions and Values. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 31, 257-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2011.571483
[4]
Bullard, R. D. (1993). Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. South End Press.
[5]
Commission for Racial Justice, United Church of Christ (1987). Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites.
[6]
Dai, D. (2011) Racial/ethnic and Socioeconomic Disparities in Urban Green Space Accessibility: Where to Intervene? Landscape and Urban Planning, 102, 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.002
[7]
Estabrooks, P. A., Lee, R. E., & Gyurcsik, N. C. (2003). Resources for Physical Activity Participation: Does Availability and Accessibility Differ by Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 100-104. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm2502_05
[8]
Federal Register (2022). Notice of Proposed Interim Settlement and Crediting Agreement Under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/07/2022-12154/notice-of-proposed-interim-settlement-and-crediting-agreement-under-comprehensive-environmental
[9]
Goldsmith, B. J. (2023). New Ways to Look at PFAS and Climate Issues: Innovative Best Practice Frameworks for Lawyers and Other Practitioners. American Bar Association.
[10]
Harris, C. D., Paul, P., Zhang, X., & Fulton, J. E. (2015). Park Access among School-Age Youth in the United States. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 12, S94-S101. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2015-0119
[11]
Johnston, R. J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R. S., & Brouwer, R. (2015). Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners. Springer
[12]
Kinnell, J. C., Bingham, M. F., Mohamed, A. F., Desvousges, W. H., Kiler, T. B., Hastings, E. K. et al. (2006). Estimating Site Choice Decisions for Urban Recreators. Land Economics, 82, 257-272. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.82.2.257
[13]
Lew, D. K., & Larson, D. M. (2008). Valuing a Beach Day with a Repeated Nested Logit Model of Participation, Site Choice, and Stochastic Time Value. Marine Resource Economics, 23, 233-252. https://doi.org/10.1086/mre.23.3.42629616
[14]
McGahey, R., de Souza Briggs, X., Treuhaft, S., & Sherman, J. (2023). Measuring What Matters for Racial Progress: Local and State Innovation in Racial Equity Impact Assessment. https://racepowerpolicy.org/measuring-what-matters/
[15]
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (2024). Environmental Justice. https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa-practice/justice.html
[16]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2024). New East Newark Riverfront Park Restoration Project. https://darrp.noaa.gov/EastNewarkRiverfrontPark
[17]
Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M. J., Girling, C., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2019). Urban Green Equity on the Ground: Practice-Based Models of Urban Green Equity in Three Multicultural Cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 44, Article ID: 126433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126433
[18]
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) (2020). Furthering the Promise: A Guidance Document for Furthering Environmental Justice.
[19]
Newkirk II, V. R. (2016). Fighting Environmental Racism in North Carolina. The New Yorker.
[20]
Pellow, D. N. (2000). Environmental Inequality Formation. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 581-601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764200043004004
[21]
Perry, A., & Hamilton, D. (2021). Just as We Score Policies’ Budget Impact, We Should Score for Racial Equity as Well. Brookings.
[22]
Stahl, R. G., Martin, J., Tomasi, T., & Goldsmith, B. J. (2023). If Coordination of Remediation and Restoration under CERCLA Is Such a Good Idea, Why Is It Not Practiced More Widely? Journal of Environmental Management, 340, Article ID: 117964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117964
[23]
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2016). Alternatives Analysis Framework. Portland District. https://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/27/docs/regulatory/Forms/Alternative%20Analysis%20Framework%20NWS%20(4-18-16).pdf?ver=2016-06-07-111159-147
[24]
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2024). Environmental Justice. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice
[25]
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2016a). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses#new
[26]
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2016b). Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis.
