Reading Reflection
Please use your weekly reading notes as a basis to construct an essay for reading reflection. Each reading note should have about 250 words for each reading, so collectively and adding your reflection, this assignment should be about 1000+ words.The first part consist in the summary of EACH reading for week 2-4 and then the second part is your reflection of all readings. The total is 1000-2000 words. The assignment includes:
1. Summarize each reading that use the rhetoric pecis as a template to answer the following questions:
1) which article you read,
2) according to the author(s), why the topic is important and what is the key point the author(s) wants to make?
3) what are the evidences, supporting arguments, or recommendations that the author(s) presented in this reading?
4) who are the target audiences that the author(s) intended to deliver to?
2. Write your own reflections on the readings, which answers, but not limited to, the following questions:
1) Why this topic is important to sustainable and resilient community design?
2) How would this topic be built upon environments that are equitable and just? and vice versa?
3) How would this topic related to climate change impacts and solutions to cope with climate change?
30
People-of-Color
Environmentalism
from Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and
Environmental Quality (1990)
Robert Bullard
Editors Introduction
Sustainability goals are often presented in terms of the three Es environment, economy, and equity which
in a sustainable society would all be enhanced over the long term. Of these, equity has been by far the least
represented within public policy debates. There are relatively few well-organized groups advocating on behalf
of low-income or otherwise disadvantaged communities. Even the environmental movement, with its relatively
progressive middle-class constituency, developed initially with little consideration of the equity implications of
its issues.
The link between social justice and environmental issues in the United States was forged in the 1980s in
large part by working-class communities fighting against the location of garbage incinerators, landfills, and
toxic chemical hazards near their neighborhoods. Black and Latino activists in particular criticized mainstream
environmental groups for their lack of diversity, and demanded procedural changes to bring about more equit-
able public participation within environmental decision making. At the same time, activists in the developing
world were calling attention to the inequitable impacts of development policies internationally a separate
but parallel set of equity debates.
Texas Southern University dean and sociology professor Robert D. Bullard has been at the forefront of
chronicling and defining the environmental justice movement in the United States. Here he discusses the
roots of the movement, links with gender issues, and prospects for future organizing. Other leading writings
on the subject of environmental justice include Growing Smarter: Achieving Livable Communities, Environ-
mental Justice, and Regional Equity, edited by Bullard (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007), The Black Metro-
polis in the Twenty-first Century: Race, Power, and Politics of Place, also edited by Bullard (Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield, 2007), Environmental Health and Racial Equity in the United States: Building Envir-
onmentally Just, Sustainable, and Livable Communities, by Bullard, Glenn S. Johnson, and Angel O. Torres
(Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association, 2011), Just Sustainabilities: Development in an
Unequal World, edited by Julian Agyeman, Bullard, and Bob Evans (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003),
Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice, by Agyeman (New York: New York
University Press, 2005), and Introducing Just Sustainability: Policy, Planning, and Practice by Agyeman
(London: Zed Books, 2013).
Wheeler, S. M., & Beatley, T. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainable urban development reader. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2020-08-19 19:45:03.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
2
01
4.
T
ay
lo
r
&
F
ra
nc
is
G
ro
up
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
R O B E R T B U L L A R D236
It is time for people to stop asking the question
Do minorities care about the environment?
The evidence is clear and irrefutable that white
middleclass communities do not have a monopoly
on environmental concern, nor are they the only
groups moved to action when confronted with the
threat of pollution. Although a concern-and-action
gap may still exist between people of color and
whites, communities of color are no longer being
bullied into submission by industrial polluters and
government regulators.1
Clearly, a new form of environmentalism has
taken root in America and in communities of color.
Since the late 1970s, a new grassroots social move-
ment has emerged around the toxics threat. Citizens
mobilized around the anti-waste theme. These
social activists acquired new skills in areas where
they had little or no prior experience. They soon
became resident experts on toxics issues. . . .
However, they did not limit their attacks to well-
publicized toxic-contamination issues but sought
remedial actions on problems like housing, trans-
portation, air quality, and even economic develop-
ment issues the traditional environmental agenda
had largely ignored.
Environmental justice embraces the principle
that all people and communities are entitled to equal
protection of environmental, health, employment,
housing, transportation, and civil rights laws. Activists
even convinced the EPA to develop a definition of
environmental justice. The EPA defines environ-
mental justice as:
The fair treatment and meaningful involve-
ment of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement
of environmental laws, regulations and policies.
Fair treatment means that no group of people,
including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group
should bear a disproportionate share of the
negative environmental consequences resulting
from industrial, municipal, and commercial oper-
ations or the execution of federal, state, local,
and tribal programs and policies.2
A major paradigm shift occurred in the 1990s.
This shift created a new framework and a new
leadership. Women led much of this grassroots
leadership. The impetus behind this change included
grassroots activism, redefinition of environmental-
ism as a right, research documenting disparities,
national conferences and symposia, emphasis on
pollution and disease prevention, government initia-
tives, interpretation of existing laws and mandates,
and grassroots alliances and coalitions.
Environmentalism has been too narrowly defined.
Concern has been incorrectly equated with check
writing, dues paying, and membership in environ-
mental organizations. These biases have no doubt
contributed to the misunderstanding of the grass-
roots environmental justice movement in people-
of-color communities. People-of-color activists in
this new movement focused their attention on the
notion of deprivation. For example, when people
of color compare their environmental quality with
that of the larger society, a sense of deprivation
and unequal treatment, unequal protection, and
unequal enforcement emerges. Once again, insti-
tutional racism and discriminatory land-use policies
and practices of government at all levels influ-
ence the creation and perpetuation of racially
separate and unequal residential areas for people
of color and whites. Too often the disparities result
in groups fighting another form of institutional
discrimination.3
All communities are not created equal. Institu-
tional barriers have locked millions of people of
color in polluted neighborhoods and hazardous,
low-paying jobs, making it difficult for them to vote
with their feet and escape these health-threatening
environments. Whether in the ghetto or barrio,
on the reservation, or in rural poverty pockets,
environmental injustice is making some people sick.
Government has been slow to take these concerns
as legitimate environmental and health problems.
Mainstream environmentalists have also been slow
in recognizing these grassroots activists as real
environmentalists.4
The environmental justice movement is an exten-
sion of the social justice movement. Environmental
justice advocates should not have to apologize
for this historical fact. Environmentalists may be
concerned about clean air but may have opposing
views on public transportation, highway construc-
tion, industrial-facility siting, or the construction of
low-income housing in white, middle-class suburban
neighborhoods. On the other hand, environmental
justice advocates also want clean air. People of color
have come to understand that environmentalists
Wheeler, S. M., & Beatley, T. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainable urban development reader. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2020-08-19 19:45:03.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
2
01
4.
T
ay
lo
r
&
F
ra
nc
is
G
ro
up
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
237 P E O P L E – O F – C O L O R E N V I R O N M E N T A L I S M
T
W
O
are no more enlightened than nonenvironmentalists
when it comes to issues of justice and social equity.
But then, why should they be more enlightened?
After all, we are all products of socialization and
reflect the various biases and prejudices of this
process. It is not surprising that mainstream envir-
onmental organizations have not been active on
issues that disproportionately impact people of
color, as in the case of toxics, workplace hazards,
rural and urban housing needs, and the myriad
of problems resulting from discriminatory zoning
and strains in the urban, industrial complex. Yet
people of color are the ones accused of being
ill-informed, unconcerned, and inactive on environ-
mental issues.
Environmental decision-making operates at
the juncture of science, economics, politics, and
ethics. It has been an uphill battle to try to convince
some government and industry officials and some
environmentalists that unequal protection, dis-
parate impact, and environmental racism exist.
Nevertheless, grassroots activists have continued
to argue and in many instances have won their
case. Working together, community stakeholders
can assist government decision-makers in identify-
ing at-risk populations, toxic hot spots, research
gaps, and action plans to correct existing imbal-
ances and prevent future threats.5 In order to
accomplish their mission in an era of dwindling
resources, environmental policymakers are in –
creasingly turning to strategies that incorporate a
community-empowerment approach. For example,
community environmental protection (CEP) is
being touted by the EPA as a new way of doing
business.
Strengthening grassroots community groups can
build a supportive social environment for decision-
making. Residents and government authorities (local,
state, and federal), often working together through
creative partnerships with grassroots community
groups, universities, nonprofit agencies, and other
institutions, can begin solving environmental and
health problems and design strategies to prevent
future problems in low-income areas and commu-
nities of color. But the US Environmental Protection
Agency and other governmental agencies cannot
resolve all environmental problems alone. Com-
munities also need to be in the position to assist
in their own struggle for clean, safe, healthy, livable,
and sustainable communities.
THE RIGHT TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR
Before the federal government stepped in, issues
related to air pollution were handled primarily by
states and local governments. Because states and
local governments did such a poor job, the federal
government established national clean-air standards.
Congress enacted the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970
and mandated the EPA to carry out this law. Sub-
sequent amendments (1977 and 1990) were made
to the CAA that form the current federal program.
The CAA was a response to states unwillingness
to protect air quality. Many states used their lax
enforcement of environmental laws as lures for
business and economic development.6
Transportation policies are also implicated in
urban air-pollution problems. Automobile-choked
highways create health-threatening air pollution.7
Freeways are the lifeline for suburban commuters,
and millions of central-city residents are dependent
on public transportation as their primary mode of
travel.8 Are people of color concerned about air
quality and transportation? The answer is yes. The
air-quality impacts of transportation are especially
significant to people of color, who are more likely
than whites to live in urban areas with reduced air
quality. . . .
Asthma is an emerging epidemic in the United
States. The annual age-adjusted death rate from
asthma increased by 40 percent between 1982 and
1991, from 1.34 to 1.88 per 100,000 population,9
with the highest rates being consistently reported
among blacks between the ages of 15 and 24 years
during the period 19801993.10 Poverty and minor-
ity status are important risk factors for asthma
mortality. Children are at special risk from ozone.11
Children also represent a considerable share of the
asthma burden, that affliction being the most com-
mon chronic disease of childhood. Asthma affects
almost 5 million children under 18 years of age. . . .
The public health community has insufficient
information to explain the magnitude of some of
the air pollution-related health problems. However,
they do know that people suffering from asthma
are particularly sensitive to the effects of carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxides, particulate matter, ozone,
and nitrogen oxides.12 Ground-level ozone may
exacerbate health problems such as asthma, nasal
congestion, throat irritation, respiratory-tract inflam-
mation, reduced resistance to infection, changes in
Wheeler, S. M., & Beatley, T. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainable urban development reader. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2020-08-19 19:45:03.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
2
01
4.
T
ay
lo
r
&
F
ra
nc
is
G
ro
up
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
R O B E R T B U L L A R D238
cell function, loss of lung elasticity, chest pains,
lung scarring, formation of lesions within the lungs,
and premature aging of lung tissues.13
African Americans, for example, have signifi-
cantly higher prevalence of asthma than the general
population.14 A 1996 report from the federal Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention shows hospi-
talization and death rates from asthma increasing
for individuals 25 years old or younger.15 The great-
est increases occurred among African Americans.
African Americans are two to six times more likely
than whites to die from asthma.16 Similarly, the
hospitalization rate for African Americans is 3.4
times the rate for whites. . . . Air pollution, for many
environmental justice advocates, translates into
poor health, loss of wages, and diminished quality
of life.
THE THREAT OF ECONOMIC EXTORTION
Why were people-of-color organizations late in
challenging the environmental imbalance that exists
in the United States? People-of-color organizations
and their leaders have not been as sensitive to
the environmental threats as they have been to
problems in education, housing, jobs, drugs, and,
more recently, the AIDS epidemic. In some cases,
they have operated out of misguided fear and
speculation that environmental justice will erode
hard-fought civil rights gains or thwart economic
development in urban core neighborhoods. There
is no evidence that environmental justice or the
application of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 has hurt business or brownfields (abandoned
properties that may or may not be contaminated)
redevelopment opportunities in communities of color.17
On the other hand, we do not have to speculate
about the harm inflicted on the residents from
racial red-lining by banks and insurance companies
and the targeting of communities of color for
polluting industries and locally unwanted land
uses, or LULUS. The harm is real and measurable.
Grassroots groups in communities of color are
beginning to take a stand against threatened plant
closure and job loss as a trade-off for environmen-
tal risks. These threats are tantamount to economic
extortion. This extortion has lost some of its appeal,
especially in those areas where the economic incen-
tives ( jobs, taxes, monetary contributions, etc.)
flow outside of the host community. People can
hardly be extorted over economic benefits they
never receive from the local polluting industry.
There is a huge difference between the promise
of a job and a real job. People will tell you, You
cant eat promises. Because of the potential to
exacerbate existing environmental inequities, com-
munity leaders are now questioning the underlying
assumptions behind so-called trade-offs as applied
in poor areas.
In their push to become acceptable and credible,
many mainstream environmental organizations
adopted a corporate model in their structure, de-
meanor, and outlook. This metamorphosis has had
a down side. These corporate-like environmental
organizations have alienated many grassroots
leaders and community organizers from the larger
movements. The environmental justice movement
with its egalitarian worldview and social justice
agenda offers an alternative to the more staid
traditional environmental groups.
Local community groups may be turned off by
the idea of sitting around a table with a waste-
disposal giant, a government regulator, and an en-
vironmentalist to negotiate the siting of a toxic-waste
incinerator in their community. The lines become
blurred in terms of the parties representing the
interests of the community and those of business.
Negotiations of this type fuel residents perception
of an unholy trinity, where the battle lines are
drawn along an us-versus-them power arrange-
ment. Moreover, overdependence on and blind
acceptance of risk-assessment analysis and the
best available technology for policy setting serves
to intimidate, confuse, and overwhelm individuals
at the grassroots level.
Talk of risk compensation for a host community
raises a series of moral dilemmas, especially where
environmental imbalances already exist. Should
risks be borne by a smaller group to spare the larger
groups? Past discriminatory facility-siting practices
should not guide future policy decisions. Having
one polluting facility makes it easier to site another
in the same general area. The one more wont
make a difference logic often becomes the domi-
nant framework for decision-making. Any saturation
policy derived from past siting practices perpetu-
ates equity impacts and environmental injustice.
Facility siting becomes a ritual for selecting victims
for sacrifice.
Wheeler, S. M., & Beatley, T. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainable urban development reader. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2020-08-19 19:45:03.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
2
01
4.
T
ay
lo
r
&
F
ra
nc
is
G
ro
up
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
239 P E O P L E – O F – C O L O R E N V I R O N M E N T A L I S M
T
W
O
MOBILIZING THE GRASS ROOTS
It is unlikely that the environmental justice move-
ment will ever gain unanimous support in com-
munities of color. Few social movements can count
on total support and involvement of their con-
stituent groups. All social movements have free
riders, individuals who benefit from the efforts of
a few. Some people shake the trees, while others
pick up the apples. People-of-color environment-
alism has been and will probably remain wedded
to a social-action and social-justice framework. The
issues raised by environmental justice advocates
challenge the very core of privilege in our society.
Some people make money and profit off the misery
of poisoning others. Some communities are spared
environmental assaults because of industrial-siting
practices of concentrating locally unwanted land
uses in communities with little or no political power
and limited resources. After all, American society
has yet to achieve a race-neutral state where race-
and ethnic-based organizations are no longer
needed.
Although the color barrier has been breached
in most professional groups around the country,
blacks still find it useful to have their own organ-
izations. The predominately black National Bar
Association (NBA), National Medical Association
(NMA), National Association of Black Social
Workers (NABSW), Association of Black Psycho-
logists (ABP), and Association of Black Sociologists
(ABS) are examples of race-based professional
organizations that will probably be around for some
time in the new millennium.
Grassroots environmental organizations have the
advantage of being closer to the people they serve
and the problems they address. Future growth
in the environmental movement is likely to come
from the bottom up, with grassroots environmental
groups linking up with social-justice groups for
expanded spheres of influence and focus.
Communities of color do not have a long track
record in challenging government decisions and
private industries that threaten the environment
and health of their residents. Many of the organ-
izations and institutions were formed as a reaction
to racism and dealt primarily with social-justice
issues. Groups such as the NAACP, Urban League,
Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and Com-
mission for Racial Justice operate at the multistate
level and have affiliates in cities across the nation.
With the exception of Reverend Joseph Lowery
of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,
Benjamin R. Chavis Jr. of the United Church
of Christs Commission for Racial Justice, and
Reverend Jessie Jackson of the National Rainbow
Coalition, few national black civil rights leaders and
organizations embraced an ideology that linked
environmental disparities with racism.18 It was not
until the 1980s that national civil rights organ-
izations began to make such links. This linking of
institutional racism with the structure of resource
allocation (clean environments) has led people-of-
color social-action groups to adopt environmental
justice as a civil rights issue, an issue well worth
taking to the street.
NIMBYism [not-in-my-backyard politics] has
operated to insulate many white communities
from the localized environmental impacts of waste
facilities while providing them the benefits of waste
disposal. NIMBYism, like white racism, creates and
perpetuates privileges for whites at the expense of
people of color. Citizens see the siting and unequal
protection question as an all-out war. Those
communities that can mobilize political influence
improve their chance of winning this war. Because
people of color remain underrepresented in elected
and appointed offices, they must, most often, rely
on indirect representation, usually through white
officials who may or may not understand the nature
and severity of the community problem. Citizen
redress often becomes a political issue. Often the
only science involved in the government response
and decision-making is political science.
Who are the frontline leaders in this quest for
environmental justice? The war against environ-
mental racism and environmental injustice has been
waged largely by people of color who are indige-
nous to the communities. People-of-color grassroots
community groups receive some moral support
from outside groups, but few experts are down in
the trenches fighting alongside the warriors. On the
other hand, it was the mothers and grandmothers,
ministers from the churches, and the activist
leaders from community-based organizations, civic
clubs, neighborhood associations, and parents
groups who mobilized against the toxics threat.
Few of these leaders may identify themselves as
environmentalists or see their struggle solely as an
environmental problem. Their struggles embrace
Wheeler, S. M., & Beatley, T. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainable urban development reader. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2020-08-19 19:45:03.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
2
01
4.
T
ay
lo
r
&
F
ra
nc
is
G
ro
up
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
R O B E R T B U L L A R D240
larger issues of equity, social justice, and resource
distribution. Environmental justice activists question
the fairness of the decision-making process and
the outcome.
Many environmental justice disputes revolve
around siting issues, involving government or pri-
vate industry. Proposals for future sites are more
likely to attract environmentalists support than
are existing sites. It is much easier to get outside
assistance in fighting a noxious facility that is on
paper than one that is in operation. Again, plant
closure means economic dislocation. Because com-
munities of color are burdened with a greater share
of existing facilities many of which have been
in operation for decades it is an uphill battle
of convincing outside environmental groups to
support efforts to close such facilities.
It makes a lot of sense for the organized
environmental movement in the United States to
broaden its base to include people-of-color, low-
income, and working-class individuals and issues.
Why diversify? People of color now form a potent
voting bloc. Diversification makes good economic
and political sense for the long-range survival of
the environmental movement. However, it is not
about selfishness or quota filling. Diversification
can go a long way in enhancing the national envi-
ronmental movements worldwide credibility and
legitimacy in dealing with global environmental
and development issues, especially in Third World
nations.19
NOTES
1 See Bullard, R.D. 1996. Unequal Protection:
Environmental Justice and Communities of Color.
San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, pp. 322;
Bryant, B. 1995. Environmental Justice: Issues,
Policies, and Solutions. Washington, DC: Island
Press, pp. 834.
2 US Environmental Protection Agency. 1998.
Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice
Concerns in EPAs NEPA Compliance Analysis.
Washington, DC: EPA.
3 Bullard, R.D. 1999. Dismantling Environmental
Racism in the USA. Local Environment, 4,
pp. 519.
4 Westra, Laura and Wenz, Peter S. 1995. Faces
of Environmental Racism: Confronting Issues of
Global Justice. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
5 Bullard, R.D. 1999. Leveling the Playing Field
Through Environmental Justice. Vermont Law
Review, 23, pp. 453478; Collin, Robert W. and
Robin M. 1998. The Role of Communities in
Environmental Decisions: Communities Speaking
for Themselves. Journal of Environmental Law
and Litigation, 13, pp. 3789.
6 Reitze, Arnold W. Jr. 1991. A Century of Air
Pollution Control Law: What Worked; What
Failed; What Might Work. Environmental Law,
21, pp. 1549.
7 Davis, Sid. 1997. Race and the Politics of
Transportation in Atlanta. In R.D. Bullard
and G.S. Johnson (eds). Just Transportation:
Dismantling Race and Class Barriers to Mobility.
Gabriola Island, DC: New Society Publishers,
pp. 8496; Environmental Justice Resource
Center. 1999. Sprawl Atlanta: Social Equity
Dimensions of Uneven Growth and Development.
Atlanta, GA: Report prepared for the Turner
Foundation, Clark Atlanta University.
8 For an in-depth discussion of transportation
investments and social equity issues, see Bullard
and Johnson (eds). Just Transportation.
9 Centers for Disease Control. 1995. Asthma
United States, 19821992. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, 43, pp. 952955.
10 Centers for Disease Control. 1996. Asthma
Mortality and Hospitalization among Children
and Young Adults United States, 19801993.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 45,
pp. 350353.
11 Pribitkin, Anna E. 1994. The Need for Revision
of Ozone Standards: Why Has the EPA Failed
to Respond? Temple Environmental Law and
Technology Journal, 13, p. 104.
12 See Mann, Eric. 1991. L.A.s Lethal Air: New
Strategies for Policy, Organizing, and Action.
Los Angeles: Labor/Community Strategy
Center.
13 US Environmental Protection Agency. 1996.
Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone, Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information. Research Triangle Park, NC: OAQPS
staff paper, EPA; American Lung Association.
1995. Out of Breath: Populations-at-Risk to Alterna-
tive Ozone Levels. Washington, DC: American
Lung Association.
Wheeler, S. M., & Beatley, T. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainable urban development reader. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from asulib-ebooks on 2020-08-19 19:45:03.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
2
01
4.
T
ay
lo
r
&
F
ra
nc
is
G
ro
up
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
241 P E O P L E – O F – C O L O R E N V I R O N M E N T A L I S M
T
W
O
14 See Mak, H.P., Abbey, H., and Talamo, R.C.
1983. Prevalence of Asthma and Health Service
Utilization of Asthmatic Children in an Inner
City. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology,
70, pp. 367372; Goldstein, I.F. and Weinstein,
A.L. 1986. Air Pollution and Asthma: Effects
of Exposure to Short-Term Sulfur Dioxide
Peaks. Environmental Research, 40, pp. 332345;
Schwartz, J., Gold, D., Dockey, D.W., Weiss, S.T.,
and Speizer, F.E. 1990. Predictors of Asthma
and Persistent Wheeze in a National Sample of
Children in the United States. American Review of
Respiratory Disease, 142, pp. 555562; Crain, F.,
Weiss, K., Bijur, J. et al., 1994, An Estimate of
the Prevalence of Asthma and Wheezing Among
Innercity Children. Pediatrics, 94, pp. 356362.
15 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
1996. Asthma Mortality and Hospitalization
Among Children and Young Adults United
States, 19801993. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, 45.
16 Centers for Disease Control. 1992. Asthma
United States, 19801990. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, 39.
17 US Environmental Protection Agency. 1999.
Brownfields Title VI Case Studies: Summary Report.
Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
18 United Church of Christ Commission for Racial
Justice. 1998. From Plantation to Plant: Report
of the Emergency National Commission on Environ-
mental Justice in St. James Parish, Louisiana.
Cleveland: United Church of Christ.
19 See Bullard, R.D. 1993. Confronting Environmental
Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Boston: South
End Press, chapter 1.
Wheeler, S. M., & Beatley, T. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainable urban development reader. ProQu
