ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2000Adeola / TOXIC ...jdericks/QOL/Literature/Adeola.pdf ·...

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2000Adeola / TOXIC CONTAMINATION AND RESPONSES

ENDANGERED COMMUNITY,ENDURING PEOPLEToxic Contamination, Health, andAdaptive Responses in a Local Context

FRANCIS O. ADEOLA is an associate professor of sociology at the University ofNew Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana. His research interests include environmentaljustice, hazardous wastes and human health, global environmentalism, poverty, andcross-national development issues. He is currently studying the health consequencesof Hurricane Georges along the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and Louisiana. He has re-cently published articles inAmerican Behavioral Scientist, Armed Forces and Soci-ety, Society and Natural Resources,andSociological Spectrum.

ABSTRACT: This article presents the case history and empirical analyses of specificcharacteristics of communities facing serious health-threatening environmental con-ditions in the New Orleans metropolitan area (NOMA). The attitudes and perceptionsof local residents concerning environmental quality and associated health problemsare assessed. A survey was conducted to determine respondents’ viewpoints aboutenvironmental risks, related health problems, and the well-being and level of commu-nity satisfaction in communities with severe environmental burdens in NOMA. Theimpacts of polluting industries and an abandoned toxic waste site recently placed onthe Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priority List (NPL) are assessed.Among the findings, people in an NPL community exhibit different attitudinal, per-ceptual, and adaptive behavioral tendencies concerning the environment and healthrelative to their counterparts in non-NPL communities with benign environmental

209

AUTHOR’S NOTE:A version of this article was presented at the 60th annual meet-ing of the Rural Sociological Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (August 1997). Iwould like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-ments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article. I would also like to thankDanielle Delhom for her diligence as an undergraduate research assistant for thisproject. Nevertheless, the views, interpretations, conclusions, credits, and any ambigu-ity in the text are my sole responsibility. Please address correspondence to Francis O.Adeola, Department of Sociology, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisi-ana 70148; e-mail: [email protected].

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 32 No. 2, March 2000 209-249© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

conditions. The respondents in an NPL community reported higher illnesses, lowercommunity life satisfaction, and associate their somatic dysfunctions with poor envi-ronmental conditions.

Active and abandoned hazardouswaste facilities pose significant threatsto the health and general quality of life of many people in the state of Louisi-ana and across the United States. The well-being of thousands of residentswho live or work next door to noxious industrial sites and brownfields (i.e.,abandoned manufacturing facilities) are imperiled by various environmentalstressors.1 The inhabitants of Cancer Alley of Louisiana—an area of 120miles stretching along the lower Mississippi industrial corridor from BatonRouge to New Orleans housing the largest concentration of petrochemicaland toxic waste facilities in the nation—are particularly at much higher risks.In 1995, Louisiana ranked second in the United States in toxics released intothe environment (Schleifstein, 1997). There is a general consensus amongthe experts, public health officials, and environmental regulators that indus-tries in Louisiana discharge excessive amounts of toxic chemicals into thelocal environment causing poor health for thousands of residents (Adeola,1994; M. H. Brown, 1987; O’Byrne & Schleifstein, 1991).

Despite the proliferation of environmental justice research in recent years,environmental health problems and how local residents define their lives on along-term exposure to toxins from hazardous waste and petrochemical facili-ties have received inadequate attention. Although environmental health rep-resents one of the oldest subdisciplines of health science with its roots insanitation and infectious disease epidemiology, the study of pathogenic envi-ronmental stressors mostly caused by human activities and the physiologicaland psychosocial consequences on population and communities after expo-sure is a recent development (Blumenthal, 1985; Edelstein, 1988; Hall,1990). There are several salient research questions yet to be addressed.

Among the salient research questions posed in this study are (a) Are theresignificant racial and socioeconomic differences between the members of acommunity in a toxic waste site placed on the Environmental ProtectionAgency’s (EPA) National Priority List (NPL) and the members of other com-munities outside the NPL sites? (b) How do the people living in proximity toofficially defined hazardous waste sites (i.e., on NPL) rate their communitiesrelative to others in regular (or non-NPL) neighborhoods? (c) Do the peopleliving closer to a hazardous waste site find the site and associated characteris-tics more disturbing than the residents not in proximity to the site? (d) Whatspecific illnesses have residents been able to associate with possible hazard-ous waste sites’ contamination? (e) Are hazardous waste site characteristics

210 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2000

more bothersome than any other problems such as crime, motor vehicle traf-fic and noise pollution, air pollution, and abandoned derelict building struc-tures in a community hosting an NPL site relative to non-NPL communities?(f) What proenvironmental and social actions have residents undertaken inresponse to perceived environmental threats in the neighborhoods and arethere significant differences in proenvironmental behavior of the people inNPL and non-NPL communities? and (g) Are there major differences inmeasures of community life satisfaction between the residents of an NPLneighborhood and their counterparts in non-NPL neighborhoods?

This study explores local residents’ perceptions of environmental prob-lems and the health risks associated with living in proximity to hazardouswaste facilities, especially those on the EPA’s National Priority List in com-munities within the New Orleans metropolitan area (NOMA). These com-munities are facing various forms of environmental threats. Majordifferences in perception, attitudes, viewpoints on specific environmentalproblems and morbidity conditions, and proenvironmental or adaptivebehavior among the residents are evaluated. Specifically, sociodemographicdifferences, the distribution of environmental hazards, self-reported environ-mentally induced illnesses, proenvironmental behavior, and subjective com-munity life satisfaction are investigated. Following the introduction andsome background information, a review of previous research, the study set-ting, the data and method, empirical analyses, and major findings arepresented.

BACKGROUND

The EPA defines environmental toxics as any pollutants that could causeadverse effects on human health. Hazardous wastes encompassing both thetoxic and nontoxic components are of immediate concern to the publicbecause of their potential to cause serious health problems. The Comprehen-sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)of 1980 gives the EPA an authority to respond to releases or threats of releasesof any hazardous substances into the environment as well as releases of apollutant that may pose an imminent and substantial danger to publichealth. Among the provisions of the act, the EPA is required to establish cri-teria to prioritize site cleanups based on risk to health, environment, andwelfare. This act, in tandem with its 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reau-thorization Act (SARA), authorizes significant funding for investigation and

Adeola / TOXIC CONTAMINATION AND RESPONSES 211

cleanup of abandoned inactive waste sites across the country. The act pro-vides legal mechanisms to assign financial responsibility for hazardouswaste cleanups to responsible parties.

Based on established criteria in the Hazards Ranking System (HRS), theEPA has placed at least 13 of these sites in Louisiana on the NPL, suggestingthe need for peremptory cleanup and other remedial measures (LouisianaDepartment of Environmental Quality [LDEQ], 1996). As of the time of thiswriting, the state hosts approximately 500 potential and 131 confirmed haz-ardous waste sites and more than 800 petrochemical companies with dismalenvironmental pollution records (LDEQ, 1996). In New Orleans and itsperiphery, there are several confirmed and potential hazardous waste sitesposing significant risk to the health and well-being of the resident population(see appendix).

Historically, the significant core social problems both in Louisiana andacross the United States have included prejudice, poverty, and violence withenvironmental hazards inextricably interwoven within each area (Cvetkovich &Earle, 1992; McGrath, 1980). A disproportionate location of hazardous (ortoxic) waste facilities and other totally obsolete abandoned derelict structures(TOADS) in low-income communities mostly occupied by minorities hasbeen the central focus of the environmental justice movement within the pastdecade (Adeola, 1994, 1995; Bullard, 1990; Edwards, 1995; Mohai & Bry-ant, 1992; Sexton, 1992). However, whether race or socioeconomic status isthe key element in Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULU’s) decisions remaincontroversial in the literature (Anderton et al., 1994; Been, 1994; Capek,1993; Zimmerman, 1993). Some have argued that socioeconomic status wasa more common denominator than race in communities located near hazard-ous waste and other polluting industries (Anderson, 1992). In Louisiana, theresidents of communities hosting LULUs are of lower socioeconomic statusand disproportionately Black, suggesting the notion of environmental racismby chemical and waste companies. Environmental racism implies racialbiases in the location of hazardous waste facilities and other LULUs, causinga disproportionate exposure of racial or ethnic minorities to pollution.

Whereas there is a growing body of evidence suggesting inequitable dis-tribution of environmental burden and a lack of uniformity in the enforce-ment of environmental regulations along racial and socioeconomic lines,very little attention has been devoted to the distribution of environmentalmorbidity and how people evaluate their own health in relation to perceivedchanges in the quality of their neighborhood. Evidence in the literature sug-gests that the impacts of hazardous waste sites may include immediate fearand selling of homes at a loss, anxiety of future health problems, depression,stress, anger, and debilitating health problems including various types of


cancer, respiratory illnesses, reproductive disorders, genetic mutations, skindiseases, liver and kidney dysfunctions, and death in cases of acute toxicexposure (Adeola, 1994; Blumenthal, 1985; Hall, 1990).

Increased medical expenditures both on preventive and recurrent illnessesassociated with environmental contamination have been addressed in the lit-erature, especially by Shechter and Kim (1991) who concluded that due toscientific uncertainty concerning dose-response relationships of pollutionand illness, the assessment of total impacts of hazardous waste exposure onmorbidity remains problematic (also see Lave & Upton, 1987). Nevertheless,adverse health consequences of exposure to hazardous wastes and air andwater pollution have been reported to cost Americans millions of dollarsannually in medical care and lost earnings (Cox, 1979).

TOXIC CONTAMINATION AND HUMAN HEALTH

The issue of toxic contamination and health consequences on humanexposure has received considerable research attention over the past three dec-ades (Blumenthal, 1985; Edelstein, 1988; Erickson, 1991; Freudenberg,1984; Levine, 1982; Perrow, 1984). Among several high-profile explosivecases of toxic contamination propelling concerns and research activitiesinclude the Love Canal, New York; Bhopal, India; the Three Mile Island,Pennsylvania; the Times Beach, Missouri; Chernobyl, Soviet Union; andExxonValdezmassive oil spill off the coast of Prince William Sound, Alaska(Baum, Fleming, & Singer, 1983; G. W. Brown & Harris, 1979; Edelstein,1988; Levine, 1982; Maser & Solomon, 1990; Picou & Gill, 1996).

Several case histories and empirical studies focusing on toxic waste con-tamination of local communities such as Alsen and Livingston, Louisiana;Legler, New Jersey; Woburn, Massachusetts; and many others across thecountry have shown the immediate and long-range impacts including com-munity disruption, economic loss, health problems, isolation, norms disori-entation, increased anxiety, and other psychosocial perturbations (P. Brown &Mikkelson, 1989; Bullard, 1990; Freudenberg, 1984; Maser & Solomon,1990). These patterns of catastrophic environmental poisoning episodes havebeen characterized as a “new species of trouble” or the pathological condi-tions becoming a “normal” aspect of postindustrial (risk) societies (Beck,1992, 1996; Erickson, 1991; Perrow, 1984). Erickson (1991) furtherdescribed how these troubles contaminate, poison, pollute, taint, and befoultheir vicinity rather than create a physical wreckage and how they penetrateliving tissues (of both human and nonhuman species) with critical physio-logical and health consequences.


Although toxic chemicals are ubiquitous in modern households, commu-nities, industries, schools, and their surroundings, establishing a direct causalconnection between adverse health effects and chemical contamination at theindividual level remains contentious among scientific experts and the laypublic (Irwin, 1995; Wynne, 1996). Today, one of the most difficult and liti-gious issues centers on determining whether morbidity conditions manifestin an individual as a result of a particular space-temporal exposure to xenobi-otics (Lave & Upton, 1987). Establishing the time, space, and nonspuriouscausality of ailment of individuals due to their exposure to toxic chemicals inthe environment has been the pivotal issue in numerous cases including theclaims of exposure to Agent Orange following the Vietnam War; the GulfWar syndrome; dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) pesticides;2,4,5-T herbicides; lead and asbestos; and the most recent case of “MadCow” disease (Irwin, 1995; Wynne, 1996). Nevertheless, there is over-whelming evidence showing that minorities and poor people face much envi-ronmental burden because of their proximity and long-term exposure toenvironmental hazards (Bullard, 1990; EPA, 1992; General AccountingOffice [GAO], 1983; Mohai & Bryant, 1992; United Church of Christ Com-mission for Racial Justice [UCCCRJ], 1987). Numerous studies have con-firmed inequitable burdens of hazardous waste, landfills, air pollution, andlead and asbestos poisoning in minority communities (Adeola, 1994;Sarokin & Schulkin, 1994). Unlike natural disasters, the anthropogenic prob-lem of community contamination lingering over an indefinite period of timewas described by Erickson (1991) as involving “invisible contaminantsremaining a part of the surroundings—being absorbed into the grain of thelandscape, the tissues of the body, and worst of all, into the genetic make-upof the victims for several generations” (p. 19).

Thus, it can be hypothesized that the people living in an officially con-firmed contaminated community are more likely to link their somatic dys-functions or specific illnesses to poor environmental conditions than thepeople in a community with a benign environment.

LULU S AND ENVIRONMENTALHEALTH BURDENS ON MARGINAL GROUPS

Whereas it is clear that no community is immune to environmental risks,minority communities are more vulnerable to these risks than their Whitecounterparts. The issue of inequitable distribution of environmental hazardsby race has been addressed with a special emphasis on municipal landfills,incinerators, petrochemical plants, brownfields, lead poisoning, soil andwater contamination, and a host of other Locally Unwanted Land Uses


disproportionately placed in minority and low-income communities(Adeola, 1994; M. H. Brown, 1987; Bullard, 1990; Faupel, Bailey, & Griffin,1991; Freudenberg, 1984). Among the major empirical findings, minoritypeople of color and the poor were more likely to live within one-half mile dis-tance or less from hazardous waste facilities, and they suffered dispropor-tionately from the consequences of exposure to pollution (Bullard, 1990;GAO, 1983; Greenberg, Schneider, & Martell, 1994; Mohai & Bryant, 1992).Across the country, an estimated 40 million people live in close proximity tohazardous waste sites, and a pattern of institutionalized racism seems appar-ent in the EPA cleanup efforts at Superfund sites in the past. Generally,cleanup efforts at NPL sites were quicker and fines imposed on polluterswere much higher in predominantly White communities than in minoritycommunities (Sarokin & Schulkin, 1994; “Unequal Protection,” 1992).

Community contamination generally involves the immediate or gradualloss of economic value, deterioration of social and ecological relationships,and diminution of health and well-being of the resident population. Forinstance, Kohlhase (1991) examined the effect of toxic waste sites on housingvalues in Houston, Texas, and found that the proximate distance of a resi-dence to a toxic waste site is not the major cause of property devaluation perse; instead, the public pronouncements by the EPA of placing a specific siteon the Superfund list have a depressing effect on housing values. Thus, themere placement of a site in a particular neighborhood on the EPA’s NPL has anegative impact on the value of properties within the whole area. It representsa stigma and disamenity pushing businesses and people of higher socioeco-nomic status away from such locations (Edelstein, 1988; Kohlhase, 1991).

Neurological disorder, cancer, reproductive pathology, and respiratorydiseases have been found to be concentrated in those communities hostingenvironmentally hazardous facilities (Adeola, 1995; Novotny, 1998). Anempirical assessment of demographic and socioeconomic differences in resi-dential propinquity to hazardous waste sites and related health problemsfound race to be nonsignificant in predicting the odds of environmental ill-ness; socioeconomic factors, however, have more significant effects on thelikelihood of such illness (Adeola, 1995). Others have reported the propen-sity for racial and ethnic minorities and poor people to live closer to potentialsources of toxics mostly because they cannot afford to live in more desirablelocations or because of hyper-segregation (Bullard, 1990; Farley, 1995;Mohai & Bryant, 1992; Pollock & Vittas, 1995).

Evidence is mounting showing a disproportionate representation ofminorities and people of color in communities hosting hazardous wasteindustry with environmental and health-threatening facilities (Bullard, 1990;GAO, 1983; Louisiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on


Civil Rights [LACUSCCR], 1993; Mohai & Bryant, 1992; Pollock & Vittas,1995; Wernette & Nieves, 1992). Some scholars contend that people of colorlive in communities not only targeted for the disposal of environmental toxinsand hazardous waste but in fact live in those communities that are considereddisposable (Lawson, 1995). Others explain the incidence of environmentalracism as stemming from a racist ideology viewing the communities of coloras culturally polluted places more appropriate for accommodating LULUs(Higgins, 1994). Evidence suggests that approximately 60% of Blacks andmore than 53% of Hispanics live and work in communities with one or morehazardous waste sites (Kriesel, Terence, & Keeler, 1996). Environmentalpollution and associated risks have disproportionate impact on people ofcolor at every level of the society including job place, residence, and commu-nity, nationally and globally. At the national and international levels, it hasbeen documented that non-Western societies of color are deliberately tar-geted for hazardous waste dumping (Adeola, 1998).

As mentioned earlier, the question of environmental inequity, racism, andsocial inequity remains controversial in the literature despite the proliferationof scholarship showing that the poor racial and ethnic minorities are overrep-resented in polluted communities and bear a disproportionate burden of haz-ardous wastes generated by industries and the government (Bullard, 1990;EPA, 1992; GAO, 1983; Pollock & Vittas, 1995; UCCCRJ, 1987). Of lesscontroversy, however, is the fact that the economically disadvantaged, politi-cally disenfranchised individuals, and minorities are more prone to the dan-gers of both natural disasters and technological hazards than are other groupsin society (Cvetkovich & Earle, 1992).

A number of researchers including Been (1994), Anderton et al. (1994),and Yandle and Burton (1996) reported a lack of racial influence on residen-tial proximity to hazardous waste sites or other LULUs. The study by Yandleand Burton (1996) in particular stimulated serious discourse concerning themethodological issues involved in the study of environmental injustice(Bullard, 1996; Mohai, 1996). In a multivariate Tobit analysis of EPA’s ToxicRelease Inventory (TRI) data for Georgia and Ohio, Kriesel et al. (1996)found both race and poverty to be significant predictors of exposure to toxicreleases. The present endeavor will analyze the characteristics of the peopleliving or working in a contaminated community and variation in the reportedincidence of environmental illness, perception of disturbing features in thecommunity, and general community life satisfaction relative to their counter-parts in non-NPL communities. The author embraces the popular epidemiol-ogical approach as opposed to traditional or classical epidemiologicalresearch by assuming that community residents are capable of understanding


and identifying the sources of environmental problems, health dysfunctions,and quality of life diminution in their own communities.

THE STUDY SETTING

Within the New Orleans metropolitan area, there are more than 35 con-firmed and potential hazardous waste sites posing significant threats to thehealth and well-being of residents (LDEQ, 1996). NOMA represents aunique study setting for the distribution of environmental hazards by race andsocioeconomic standing and the possible health outcomes of exposure toenvironmental contaminants. The city remains one of the most segregated inthe United States, and the majority of the confirmed hazardous waste sites arein low-income minority neighborhoods. According to Farley (1995), theindex of racial dissimilarity (segregation) of neighborhoods computed basedon census tracts data for New Orleans was 72% relative to a national averageof 62% in 1990. Agriculture Street is a contaminated community of colorrecently placed on the EPA’s NPL in NOMA. There are other communitiesfacing various environmental degradation but that have not been included onthe EPA’s NPL (see appendix). Both the Agriculture Street Landfill Super-fund site and non-NPL communities are included in this study. A briefdescription of the Agriculture Street Landfill Superfund site and the sur-rounding toxic community is in order.

THE AGRICULTURE STREET SUPERFUND SITE:A PORTRAIT OF A CONTAMINATED COMMUNITY

Inactive hazardous waste dump sites generally reflect a history spanningseveral decades of environmental contamination posing significant threats tohuman health and the health of all other organisms (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 1996;Zimmerman, 1993). The historical sketch of pollution episodes within Agri-culture Street has been reported in the media as dating back to 1910 when amunicipal hazardous waste dump was first declared open in the 9th Ward ofthe city of New Orleans (Finch, 1994). Waste streams from homes, industry,and businesses were channeled to this 95-acre site for nearly 55 years withoutspecific regulations, standards, or records for the type of wastes dumped.Thus, the Agriculture Street Dump (ASD) was a major depot for solidwastes from households and businesses as well as for toxic wastes from pet-rochemical industries and hospitals in NOMA. These have been describedas a toxic brew of industrial and commercial wastes and household wastes


encompassing pesticides, motor oil, and old lead-based paint and solvents,all known to be toxic (Lave & Upton, 1987; O’Byrne, 1994; O’Byrne &Schleifstein, 1991).

By 1951, approximately 250 tons of unregulated highly toxic industrial,medical, agricultural wastes, and incinerator ash were being deposited at thesite daily. Between the 1940s and 1950s, increased urbanization broughtabout the construction of residential structures closer to the dump despiteincreased population of vermin, flies, and noxious odors in the vicinity. In1948, the state declared the operation of open dumps within city limits ille-gal; consequently, the dump was landfilled (i.e., the wastes in the open dumpwere buried). Subsequently, many residents of adjacent communities regis-tered repeated complaints about the stench, vermin, breathing difficulty, andpeeling paints associated with the site. To control the insect and vermin prob-lems, a poisonous and highly persistent pesticide (DDT) was sprayed dailyacross the dump, thus exacerbating the extent of contamination. In 1958, thelandfill was closed although midnight dumping (i.e., illegal deposit ofwastes) persisted. It was reopened briefly in 1965 to accommodate debris leftover from Hurricane Betsy, and much of the trash deposited was burned andthe landfill was closed again.

By 1969, a housing development project involving the construction of 220townhouses and apartment complexes on top of the old landfill was initiatedby the Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO), and the community wascompleted by 1971. Currently, HANO rents 56 of the units and has about 112households in a program that allows them to gradually build equity. The resi-dents of the remaining 52 units have already acquired clear ownership titles(Warner, 1997). In 1980, Gordon Plaza subdivision including 128 apartmentsmainly for the elderly and a small neighborhood shopping center was com-pleted. Also, Gordon Place subdivision consisting of 67 affordable homes forlow- and middle-income families was completed. These dwelling units are inclose proximity to each other and right on top of a contaminated landfill (seeFigures 1 and 3 for a contaminated property and an undeveloped section ofthe landfill). Gordon Place was built to encourage low-to-middle-incomefamilies to buy their first “dreamed home” through a government-fundedprogram that allows people to apply rent to down payments. In the mid-1980s, the Orleans Parish School Board built Moton Elementary School inthe community despite the evidence indicating a substantial degree of con-tamination of the old landfill. Thus, the new houses built on top of the oldAgriculture Street landfill directly exposed many families and children to lin-gering toxicity and associated health problems (Levine, 1982).

Agriculture Street represents a special case relative to other communitiesincluded in the study mostly because of the nature of environmental problems


and controversies surrounding the community. As mentioned, worse than thecase of the Love Canal in New York (Levine, 1982), this community consistsof recently developed houses and an elementary school right on top of an old


Figure 1: Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Priority List (NPL)Agriculture Street Municipal Landfill and Adjacent Community

abandoned toxic waste dump site that was recently assessed and found con-taminated enough to be placed on the EPA’s NPL because of overwhelmingevidence of toxicity. Up-to-date scientific tests identified about 100 toxicchemicals in the soil of the neighborhood including polychlorinated biphen-yls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), lead, arsenic, chlor-dane, and 4,4’ DDT. Health problems associated with direct and indirectexposures to the toxic chemicals confirmed to be present at the dump siterange from various types of cancer, respiratory problems, skin disorder,spontaneous abortion, birth defects, and neurological dysfunction in children(Finch, 1994).

Many residents have now come to realize that business and governmentdecisions made in the past based on profit motive resulted in the poisoning oftheir neighborhoods, homes, and bodies. These residents have been told notto dig or have a garden in their yards, to always wash their hands thoroughlyafter contact with soil, not to track dirt into their homes, and to keep pets andchildren from contact with soil in the yard. A home previously considered asafe haven now constitutes a major source of dread and nightmares. Similarto other case studies of environmental contamination, unexplained healthproblems, fear of future illnesses, the failure of government to quicklyrespond to residents’plights, and denial of responsibility by corporations areamong the common aspects of environmental stressors (P. Brown & Mikkel-sen, 1989; Edelstein, 1988; Hallman & Wandersman, 1992; Vaughan & Nor-denstam, 1991).

The sentiments of local residents are clearly reflected in some of the unob-trusive measures including various symbols, expressions, and for sale signs(with “caveat emptor”) posted in front of many houses (see Figure 2). Gener-ally, they feel betrayed by the government that subsidized a housing settle-ment on top of a hazardous waste dump site and presented the environment asbenign or safe at first but later declared it a major health threat to the public.They are also disenchanted with experts’claims often contradicting or trivial-izing lay residents’experiential accounts of daily toxic encounters. As shownin Figure 1, most of the homeowners are in a serious bind because they areunable to sell their homes due to the stigma of being located on top of a Super-fund site. Also, because of mortgage commitments, fear of crime, and otherunknowns, moving out of the contaminated community to buy or rent anotherhouse is not feasible. Thus, many homeowners feel trapped and powerless toresolve the predicament.

As Hallman and Wandersman (1992) indicated, the stress due to inabilityto protect oneself from environmental contamination or from the consequenthealth problems can often lead to long-term cognitive, emotional, and behav-ioral dysfunctions. Hitherto, the possibility of a federal government buyout


or relocation of the entire community is slim, and the efficacy of a remedialmeasure currently being implemented is uncertain. As of the time of this writ-ing, the EPA through its Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas, had initiated a plan


Figure 2: Contaminated and Stigmatized Properties in Agriculture Street

to clean up Agriculture Street. This involves the removal and replacement ofthe top soils of the developed and undeveloped areas of the old dump site.Following the top soil removal, the undeveloped area of about 95 acres(shown in Figure 3) will subsequently be covered with geoplastic fabric thatwill allow the flow of both water and air through the soil. This project wasestimated to cost $16 million. Figure 3 shows the map of the AgricultureStreet landfill site and the contaminated communities including GordonPlaza subdivision and apartment complex, Press Park, HANO housing, andMoton Elementary School discussed earlier; also noteworthy are the LULUsincluding a recycling facility, an electrical power substation, and of course,the undeveloped area of the old landfill still serving as a depot for midnightdumping.

The lack of solidarity among residents is a major stumbling block delay-ing cleanup and other remedial measures. As Albrecht, Robert, and Amir(1996) and Couch and Kroll-Smith (1994) indicated, the identification of analready existing environmental contamination is most likely to generate con-flict at the community level because of differences in perceptions and defini-tions of the situation as well as in the distribution of impacts. According toCouch and Kroll-Smith (1994), multiple definitions of the extent of commu-nity contamination and adverse health effects are typically accompanied bymultiple choices in terms of mitigation, safety, medical treatment, and relo-cation. Essentially, multiple choices of remedial plans are conflict laden, asfound in the case of Agriculture Street. Conflicts among residents—home-owners against renters; elderly against younger residents; and vested busi-ness and political interests, grassroots opposition groups, experts, lay publicand residents against the EPA—are endemic in Agriculture Street NPL sites’mitigation and cleanup strategies.

DATA AND METHOD

The communities listed by the Louisiana Department of EnvironmentalQuality as hosting polluting industry and abandoned hazardous waste sitesincluding those placed on the EPA’s NPL were used for the purpose of thestudy (see appendix). The data came from a survey conducted during thesummer of 1996 in Agriculture Street and three other communities in theNew Orleans metropolitan area. A list of confirmed and potential hazardouswaste sites (HWS) in NOMA compiled in the Louisiana Site RemediationInformation System (LASRIS) was used as a guide for selecting communi-ties or neighborhoods included in the survey (see appendix). The city map


was used in conjunction with the list in the appendix to select the communi-ties and households to participate in the study. A cluster (area probability)sample of city blocks and households within selected blocks was used to


Figure 3: The Map of Agriculture Street Landfill Site

select adult respondents aged 18 and older. This sampling technique is rec-ommended when it is either impossible or impractical to obtain an exhaustivelist of elements of the target population (Babbie, 1990). The sampling coversAgriculture Street Landfill Superfund site in the 9th Ward of Orleans Parish(county) and other communities including Arabi, Kenner, and Metairie in St.Bernard and Jefferson Parishes, respectively, in NOMA.2 Ten advancedundergraduate students were recruited and trained to administer the survey.Through a face-to-face administration of a standardized survey instrument,the residents of households in communities hosting sites or LULUs listed inLASRIS, including abandoned or active landfills, incinerators, toxic wastedumps, and petrochemical processing facilities, participated in the study.

A 10-page questionnaire employing Guttman and Likert-type format wasconstructed and pretested in early June 1996 for the purpose of the study.Topical items on environmental health perception, neighborhood problems,degree of dissatisfaction with environmental conditions, level of life satisfac-tion in community, environmental behavior and attitudes, and sociodemo-graphic characteristics were included in the questionnaire. A total sample (N)of 110 was achieved withn = 50 for Agriculture Street NPL Site andn = 60for non-NPL communities.3

Initially, it was difficult to gain the cooperation of some of the residents.The residents of Agriculture Street (NPL site) in particular have organizedthemselves around the issue of toxic waste contamination. Specifically, theyhave formed the Concerned Citizens of the Agriculture Street Landfill Super-fund site as a grassroots response to community contamination. Although thenature and purpose of the survey were carefully explained, one of the com-munity leaders expressed skepticism and objected to the presence of studentinterviewers in the community. Some residents objected to being singled outas experimental subjects (or guinea pigs), which explains their skepticismtoward the student interviewers. They expressed their anger and frustrationabout how government agencies such as DEQ and EPA and academicresearch institutions are studying them to death without providing neededsolutions to their problems. People are also sensitive to the legal and politicalconflicts over the issues of contamination and exposure to unknown chemicalagents in their community environment. The wider scope of the survey, how-ever, seems to be more acceptable as people were more cooperative once theyrealized their neighborhood was not the only one participating in the study.Also, the residents were more inclined to participate on being informed thatthe study is not a tool for any vested interest group. Both in the AgricultureStreet NPL site and other non-NPL communities, only 15 refusals were


recorded by the interviewers, with 10 from the former and 5 from the latter.Due to budget limitation and other constraints, there were no callbacks.

ANALYSES AND FINDINGS

Table 1 displays the frequencies and percentages of social and demographiccharacteristics of respondents to the survey. In addition to the breakdown byplace of residence (i.e., NPL and non-NPL communities), the demographicportraits of the total sample of 110 include sex (59 males, 50 females, and 1who chose not to identify with either), race (53 Whites and 57 non-Whites),marital status (58 married and 52 nonmarried), job status (82 employed full- orpart-time, 25 unemployed, and 3 homemakers), all with varying education andincome levels. On the average, these respondents have lived in the NewOrleans area for more than 13 years and have a 40.5 median age.4

Who lives in the most polluted communities in NOMA? Data on sociode-mographic characteristics of respondents reveal Agriculture Street and thesurrounding communities as one of the most contaminated areas in the NewOrleans metropolitan area. This area is the habitat for more than 1,000 peoplewho are predominantly Black and of low- to middle-income status. Consis-tent with previous research on environmental inequity (Adeola, 1994;Bullard, 1990; Mohai & Bryant, 1992), an overwhelming majority of therespondents from Agriculture Street is non-White, with lower householdincome, lower level of education, and in closer proximity to landfill site (seeTable 2).

Following the initial data analysis (IDA) of univariate attributes, multi-variate discriminant analysis (MDA) was employed to evaluate specificitems in the survey relevant to the objectives of this study. Discriminantanalysis techniques, useful in taxonomic problems, are quite appropriate fordescribing group differences on the basis of specified response and controlvariables (Huberty, 1994; Klecka, 1980). The isolation (or identification) ofdiscriminating variables accounting for group mean differences between twoor more groups is achieved through a discriminant analysis. MDA uses a cate-gorical (nominal) variable as the dependent (criterion) variable, and for thepresent study, place of residence—Agriculture Street on NPL and other com-munities with benign environmental conditions (non-NPL) in NOMA—constitutes the grouping (criterion) variable for all the models estimated.Specific thematic discriminant models are estimated to address the researchquestions, and the independent variables for each analysis are specified.



TABLE 1Background Characteristics of Sample

Variable N Percentage

RaceWhite 53 48.2Black 45 40.9Other minority 12 10.9

110 100.0Sex

Male 59 53.6Female 50 45.5Couldn’t tell 1 .9

110 100.0Marital status

Married 58 52.7Nonmarried 30 27.3Single, never married 22 20.0

110 100.0Level of education

Less than high school 12 10.9High school 24 21.8Some college 27 24.5Completed college 30 27.3Some graduate work 17 15.5

110 100.0Job status

Employed full-time 69 62.72Employed part-time 13 11.82Homemaker or housewife 3 2.73Unemployed 25 22.73

110 100.0Total household income

Less than $10,000 13 11.8$10,000 to $19,999 22 10.0$20,000 to $29,999 17 15.5$30,000 to $39,999 16 14.5$40,000 to $49,999 14 12.7$50,000 to $59,999 8 7.3$60,000 or more 20 18.2

110 100.0Median age: 40.50 yearsAverage duration of residency: 13.3 years

THE SOCIOECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHICDIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN NPL AND NON-NPL GROUPS

An MDA of sociodemographic variables using NPL and non-NPL asdichotomous dependent variables was performed. The background charac-teristics shown in Table 1 are used in conjunction with other sociodemo-graphic variables including age, residential distance to hazardous waste site,number of children younger than 5 years of age in a household, and politicalviews to estimate a sociodemographic MDA for the two categories of inter-est. These variables have been analyzed extensively in the literature and haveproduced inconsistent or controversial results (e.g., Been, 1994; Bullard,1990, 1996; Jones, 1998; Mohai, 1996; Mohai & Bryant, 1992; Napton &Day, 1992; Yandle & Burton, 1996; Zimmerman, 1993). Specifically, thisfirst set of MDA addresses the questions concerning who lives in the mostpolluted community in NOMA and whether there are major racial and socio-demographic disparities between the NPL community and non-NPL com-munities. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the results of the MDA. In Table 2, groupmeans and standard deviations of the socioeconomic and demographic vari-ables are presented for the NPL and non-NPL groups. Major differences are


TABLE 2Group Means and Standard Deviationsof Sociodemographic Characteristics

Non-NPL Group NPL Agriculture StreetVariable Means (SD) Group Means (SD)

Race (1 = White, 2 = non-White) 1.30 (.46) 1.78 (.42)Sex (1 = male, 2 = female, 3 = not telling) 1.48 (.54) 1.46 (.50)Age 42.48 (14.99) 42.00 (13.61)Number of children younger than 5 .25 (.60) .40 (.83)Level of education (1 = 8th grade or less,

7 = graduate) 4.53 (1.52) 3.80 (1.31)Home ownership (1 = yes, 2 = no) 1.33 (.48) 1.38 (.49)Household income (1 = less than $10,000,

7 = $60,000 or more) 4.20 (2.01) 3.56 (2.01)Hazardous waste site proximity (in miles) 34.13 (38.19) 13.78 (25.99)Job status (1 = full-time, 4 = unemployed) 1.88 (1.49) 2.10 (1.50)Marital status (1 = married, 2 = unmarried) 1.72 (.83) 1.62 (.75)Political views (1 = liberal, 7 = conservative) 3.15 (1.15) 3.18 (1.86)

NOTE: NPL = Environmental Protection Agency National Priority List.

shown for race, level of education, household income, and residential prox-imity to landfill or hazardous waste site as expected. Indeed, the respondentsfrom the Agriculture Street NPL site are 2.5 times more likely to live closer toa toxic waste site than their counterparts in other areas of NOMA.

The results of an MDA showing standardized function coefficients,Wilks’s lambda,F ratio, and related statistics and classification matrix aredisplayed in Table 3. Consistent with the results in Table 2, race and residen-tial distance to a hazardous waste site are the two strongest and most


TABLE 3Discriminant Analysis of Sociodemographic

Attributes of Environmental Protection AgencyNational Priority List (NPL) and Non-NPL Communities

StandardizedFunction Wilks’s

Coefficient Lambda F Ratio Significance

Race –.849 .771 32.04 .000***Hazardous waste site

proximity (miles) .524 .913 10.24 .002***Level of education .301 .938 7.17 .009**Total household income .167 .975 2.77 .091*Number of children younger than 5 –.160 .989 1.20 .276Job status –.076 .995 .57 .450Duration of residency

(in years and months) .101 .996 .45 .504Marital status .392 .996 .41 .526Sex –.077 .999 .00 .816Age .242 .999 .00 .861Political views –.200 .999 .00 .918Group means (centroids)

Citywide non-NPL (1) .708NPL Agriculture Street (2) –.850

Canonical correlation (Cr) .617 (Cr2 = .380)Eigenvalue .613Wilks’s Lambda .620χ2 (chi-square, df 12) 48.79***

Classification Matrix Predicted Group Membership

Actual Group N 1 2

(1) Non-NPL citywide 60 50 (83.3%) 10 (16.7%)(2) NPL Agriculture Street 50 11 (22.0%) 39 (78.0%)

NOTE: Grouped cases correctly classified = 80.91%.*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

statistically significant variables (p < .001) differentiating the two groups.Next, the level of education and total household income of respondents aresignificant discriminants atp < .05 andp < .10, respectively. The group cen-troids of –.850 for NPL and .708 for non-NPL successfully separate the twogroups on a theoretical geometrical plane. Also, the canonical correlation(.617), percentage of variance accounted for (.380), the eigenvalue (.613),and Wilks’s lambda (.620) are strong, and a chi-square of 48.79 is significantatp < .001. The classification matrix yielded 80.91% correct classification.These findings are consistent with the results of previous analyses (Adeola,1994, 1995; Bullard, 1990; EPA, 1992; GAO, 1983; Kriesel et al., 1996;LACUSCCR, 1993; Mohai & Bryant, 1992; Pollock & Vittas, 1995;UCCCRJ, 1987; Wernette & Nieves, 1992). Race is the strongest and mostsignificant predictor of living in a toxic community in NOMA. Beside race,residential distance to toxic waste site, education, and household income,none of the remaining social and demographic variables are significant inpredicting group differences between NPL and non-NPL respondents.

PERCEPTION OF SERIOUSNESS OFENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

On a topical issue of the seriousness of environmental problems in thecommunity, respondents were provided 20 potential environmental prob-lems and asked to indicate whether the presence of each is aserious problem(4),somewhat of a serious problem(3),not at all a problem(2), ornonexist-ing in their neighborhood(1). These include hazardous waste sites, solidwaste disposal, obsolete derelict buildings, poor streets, unwelcome siting ofpolluting industries, garbage in streets, air and water pollution, contaminatedsoil, waste treatment plants, periodic flooding, petrochemical facility pollu-tion, motor vehicle traffic, noise pollution, unfriendly neighbors, toxicchemical leaks, crime, inadequate trees, lack of neighborhood patrol, andlack of citizens’ participation in facility siting decisions.

The group means indicate that more undesirable environmental condi-tions are posingsomewhat of a serious problemfor the Agriculture Streetsample than among the non-NPL respondents. Specifically, abandoned dere-lict building structures, poor streets and open ditches, garbage or trash instreets, periodic flooding, toxic chemical leaks, lack of neighborhood patrol,and absence of citizen participation in facility siting decisions were consid-ered somewhat of major threats (see Table 4).

To determine which of the 20 items from the survey discriminate betweenthe two major groups while controlling for all other variables, an MDA wasperformed. Because there are only two groups in the analysis, only one


discriminant function is possible (Huberty, 1994; Klecka, 1980). Table 5presents the results of the MDA showing the standardized function coeffi-cients (SFCs), Wilks’s lambda,F ratios, and other statistics. Only 14 itemssignificantly discriminate between the two groups (i.e., contaminated Agri-culture Street and the less contaminated communities in NOMA). A groupcentroid represents an imaginary point that has coordinates that are thegroup’s mean on each of the variables in the MDA model (Klecka, 1980).Examination of the group centroids reveals that the variables included in themodel successfully discriminate the centroid for NPL Agriculture Street(.631) from non-NPL communities (–.526). Among the most significant


TABLE 4Group Means and Standard Deviations of Respondents’

Rating of Seriousness of Environmental Problems in Neighborhoods

Non-NPL Citywide NPL Agriculture StreetVariable Group Means (SD) Group Means (SD)

Hazardous waste sites 2.13 (1.46) 2.54 (1.31)Disposal of solid (nontoxic) wastes 2.25 (1.68) 2.64 (1.50)Abandoned derelict (condemned)

buildings 2.07 (1.45) 3.08 (1.68)Poor streets, roads, and open ditches 2.57 (1.62) 3.16 (1.04)Unwelcome location of polluting

industries 2.05 (1.62) 2.50 (1.53)Garbage or trash in streets 2.27 (1.84) 3.04 (1.07)Air pollution and bad odors 2.30 (1.39) 3.02 (1.10)Contaminated lawns and soil 2.02 (1.32) 2.56 (1.73)Water pollution 2.13 (1.43) 2.90 (1.39)Waste treatment plants, incinerator,

and waste-to-energy facilities 2.28 (1.82) 3.16 (2.09)Periodic flooding 2.97 (1.73) 3.18 (0.85)Petrochemical facility pollution 1.82 (1.30) 2.68 (2.19)Heavy motor vehicle traffic 2.38 (1.29) 2.82 (1.42)Noise pollution 2.18 (1.57) 2.70 (1.02)Unfriendly neighbors 2.27 (1.82) 2.96 (1.85)Toxic chemical leaks 2.10 (1.85) 2.62 (2.36)Crime 2.65 (1.49) 3.30 (0.91)Lack of neighborhood patrol 2.43 (1.18) 3.20 (1.26)Inadequate trees 1.95 (1.50) 2.28 (0.99)Lack of citizens’ participation in facility

siting decisions 2.25 (1.53) 3.10 (1.88)

NOTE: Respondents were asked to indicate whether the presence of each characteristic listedabove is a very serious problem (4), somewhat a serious problem (3), not a serious problem (2), ornot at all a problem or nonexisting (1) in their neighborhood.NPL = Environmental Protection AgencyNational Priority List.


TABLE 5Discriminant Analysis of Seriousness of Environmental

Problems in New Orleans Metropolitan Area


Predictor Variable Coefficient Lambda F Ratio Significance

Hazardous waste sites –.190 .979 2.33 .130Disposal of solid (nontoxic) wastes –.096 .985 1.62 .206Abandoned derelict buildings .604 .903 11.57 .001***Poor streets, roads, and open

ditches –.189 .956 4.99 .027**Unwelcome location of polluting

industries –.920 .980 2.21 .139Garbage or trash in streets .720 .940 6.89 .010***Air pollution and bad odors .180 .925 8.80 .004***Contaminated lawns and soil –1.001 .969 3.49 .064*Water pollution .545 .931 8.04 .006***Sewage treatment, incinerators,

and waste-to-energy facilities .105 .951 5.51 .021**Periodic flooding –.084 .994 .63 .427Petrochemical facility pollution .949 .943 6.58 .012**Heavy motor vehicle traffic –.414 .974 2.84 .095*Noise pollution .077 .964 4.02 .047**Unfriendly neighbors .487 .965 3.89 .051*Toxic chemical leaks –.372 .985 1.68 .197Crime .150 .937 7.23 .008***Lack of neighborhood patrol .326 .909 10.77 .001***Inadequate trees –.165 .984 1.77 .186Lack of citizens’ participation in

facility siting decisions .112 .940 6.87 .010***Group means (centroids)

Citywide group (1) –.526Agriculture Street (2) .631

Canonical correlation (Cr) .503 (Cr2 = .253)Eigenvalue .338Wilks’s Lambda .747χ2 (chi-square, df 20) 28.540*


Actual Group N 1 2

(1) Citywide 60 46 (76.7%) 14 (23.3%)(2) Agriculture Street 50 13 (26.0%) 37 (74.0%)

NOTE: Grouped cases correctly classified = 75.45%.*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

discriminators are perceptions about obsolete derelict building structures,garbage or trash in streets, water pollution, crime, lack of neighborhoodpatrol, and lack of citizens’participation in facility siting decisions (p< .01).Other important discriminators are poor streets and roads, waste treatmentfacilities, petrochemical facility pollution, noise pollution (p < . 05), con-taminated lawn and soil, heavy motor traffic, and unfriendly neighbors (p <.10). Based on the canonical correlation of .503 (squared) or (1 – Wilks’slambda), about 25% of variation in the discriminant function is accounted forin the model.

DIFFERENCES IN SELF-REPORTEDENVIRONMENTAL ILLNESS

In terms of specific illnesses residents have been complaining about inrelation to hazardous waste site contamination, respondents were presented alist of potential health problems related to exposure to environmental


TABLE 6Group Means and Standard Deviations of

Self-Reported Most Frequently ExperiencedHealth Problems Associated With Environmental Pollution


Breathing disorder 1.93 (1.33) 2.00 (1.43)Cancer of the breast 1.35 (1.16) 2.90 (3.30)Cancer of the lungs 1.32 (1.14) 1.92 (2.25)Cancer of the pancreas 1.55 (1.81) 1.94 (2.43)Cancer of the prostate 1.95 (2.42) 2.16 (2.62)Chemical hypersensitivity 1.58 (1.52) 2.20 (2.38)Eye irritation 2.13 (1.57) 2.68 (2.16)Weakness of the body 2.20 (1.82) 1.94 (1.36)Gastrointestinal disorder 1.95 (1.82) 2.40 (2.19)Hearing impairment 1.73 (1.80) 1.84 (2.20)Infertility 1.53 (1.77) 2.06 (2.44)Spontaneous abortion, miscarriage 1.82 (2.24) 3.08 (3.39)Skin disorder 1.57 (1.24) 1.84 (1.43)Nervous disorder 1.56 (1.53) 2.18 (2.22)Depression and mood swings 1.70 (1.25) 2.06 (1.79)Fear, anxiety of future health 2.05 (1.84) 2.50 (2.00)Exposure to multiple chemicals 1.68 (1.81) 3.12 (3.10)

NOTE: Items were ranked on a scale of 1 to 4 measuring the level of frequent experience. NPL =Environmental Protection Agency National Priority List.

pollution. They were asked to indicate whether they or any member of theirfamily havemost frequently experienced(4), frequently experienced(3),sel-dom experienced(2), or never experienced(1) each of the problems listed in


TABLE 7Discriminant Analysis of Self-Reported

Most Frequently Experienced Health ProblemsAssociated With Environmental Contamination



Cancer of the breast .037 .903 11.56 .001***Exposure to multiple chemicals .738 .922 9.15 .003***Spontaneous abortion .543 .952 5.46 .021**Cancer of the lungs .613 .970 3.30 .072*Nervous disorder –.125 .974 2.92 .091*Chemical hypersensitivity .610 .976 2.70 .100*Breathing disorder –.375 .999 .64E-01a .800Cancer of the pancreas –.357 .992 .93 .337Cancer of the prostate –.399 .998 .19 .664Eye irritation .317 .979 2.36 .128Weakness of the body –.760 .994 .69 .406Gastrointestinal disorder .290 .987 1.38 .242Hearing impairment –.530 .999 .78E-01a .780Infertility –.104 .984 1.71 .194Skin disorder –.173 .990 1.15 .286Depression and mood swings .489 .986 1.53 .219Fear, anxiety of future health

problems –.097 .986 1.51 .222Group means (centroids)

Citywide group (1) –.557Agriculture Street (2) .668

Canonical correlation (Cr) .524 (Cr2 = .275)Eigenvalue .379Wilks’s lambda .725χ2 (chi-square, df 17) 31.95**


Actual Group N 1 2

(1) Citywide 60 55 (91.7%) 5 (8.3%)(2) Agriculture 50 24 (48.0%) 26 (52.0%)

NOTE: Grouped cases correctly classified = 73.64%.a. E-01 = .001.*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Table 6. The group means and standard deviations are displayed in the table,and once again, Agriculture Street registered higher group means for all ill-nesses except for weakness of the body. What specific experienced illnessesdiscriminate between Agriculture Street (NPL) and other areas (or non-NPLgroups)?

The results of the MDA performed pertaining to the specific illnesses resi-dents have been able to associate with hazardous waste-site-induced con-tamination are presented in Table 7. Only 5 health problems approach anymeaningful statistical significance level to be considered important discrimi-nators between the two groups. These include breast cancer, exposure to mul-tiple chemicals (p < .01), spontaneous abortion among pregnant women (p <.05), cancer of the lungs, and nervous disorder. Focusing on standardizedfunction coefficients, exposure to multiple chemicals has the strongest coef-ficients, which may not be surprising given the publicity concerning theextent of chemical contamination in Agriculture Street. Thus, as expected,the respondents from an NPL community reported higher incidence of envi-ronmentally induced morbidity than those from non-NPL communities. Thisanalysis suggests that Agriculture Street residents perceive themselves asmore prone to cancer of the breast, lung cancer, multiple chemical exposure,teratogen, and nervous disorder than the non-NPL communities.

The MDA’s group centroids (–.557) for non-NPL communities and (.668)for Agriculture Street indicate the position of each group on a theoretical geo-metric (Euclidean) plane, which suggests that the selected variables clearlydiscriminate the centroids of the two groups. The canonical correlation forthe model is .524, and about 28% of the variance in discriminant function isaccounted for by the variables specified. Also, about 74% correct classifica-tion of grouped cases was achieved.

GROUP DISCRIMINANTS OF MOST DISTURBINGHAZARDOUS WASTE SITE CHARACTERISTICS

MDA is useful for determining which items in the survey on the theme ofmost disturbing characteristics of hazardous waste site distinguish those whoreside near a hazardous waste site on the NPL and those who reside far awaybased on the linear combination of a set of selected predictor variables. In thesurvey, 13 characteristics often associated with hazardous waste sites or otherLULUs were presented to the respondents for rating on a scale of 1 (not at alldisturbing) to 4 (extremely disturbing) in neighborhoods. The means andstandard deviations of responses from the two major groups are displayed inTable 8. As expected, the respondents from the NPL site (Agriculture Street)


rated most of the characteristics asdisturbingto extremely disturbingcom-pared to their counterparts in the non-NPL communities.

In an MDA using minimization of Wilks’s lambda, a stepwise variableselection procedure was used to extract the 8 most discriminating variablesout of the original 13 in the survey. Table 9 presents the results of the MDAincluding the SFCs, Wilks’s lambda,F ratios, and other summary statistics.Focusing on standardized coefficients (while ignoring the – or + signs), deg-radation of the community has the most discriminating influence on the func-tion followed by increased population of vermin, perceived health impact,noisy trucks and equipment, friends’ unwillingness to visit (p < .01), cannotsell property (p < .05), and impact of site on drinking water supply (p < .01).The test of equality of group centroids prior to the computation of the dis-criminant function shows that the two groups are located on different pointsalong a theoretical geometric plane. Specifically, the group centroid for NPLAgriculture Street is .635, whereas the centroid for the non-NPL group is


TABLE 8Group Means and Standard Deviations of Hazardous Waste

Site Characteristics’ Level of Disturbance to Local Respondents


Appearance of sites 3.00 (2.59) 4.00 (2.47)Bad odors and gases 2.97 (2.46) 3.62 (2.10)Degradation of the community 2.82 (2.33) 3.74 (2.03)Perceived health impact 3.07 (2.29) 3.52 (1.96)Cannot sell property because of

contamination 2.87 (2.52) 4.00 (2.70)Friends are unwilling to visit 2.63 (2.56) 2.98 (2.66)Desirable business enterprises

staying away 2.77 (2.49) 3.78 (2.98)Site stigmatizes neighborhood 2.95 (2.63) 3.84 (2.68)Site stigmatizes the residents 2.72 (2.52) 3.80 (2.67)Noisy equipment and trucks 2.75 (2.51) 3.92 (2.60)Impact of site on drinking water 2.82 (2.36) 3.60 (2.39)Increased population of vermin 2.87 (2.34) 3.38 (2.36)Graffiti on the walls, road surfaces,

and sidewalks 2.82 (2.34) 3.28 (2.53)

NOTE: Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which the presence of each of the charac-teristics is extremely disturbing (4), disturbing (3), somewhat disturbing (2), or not at all disturbing (1)to them in their neighborhood. NPL = Environmental Protection Agency National Priority List.

–.529. About 26% of the variance (1 – Wilks’s lambda) in the function isaccounted for by the variables selected, and the classification results indicatethat 73.64% of the grouped cases are correctly classified.

GROUP DIFFERENCES IN ADAPTIVEPROENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR

Do people in a contaminated community exhibit more positive environ-mental behavior as an adaptive response to the perception of risks associated


TABLE 9Discriminant Analysis of Disturbing

Characteristics of Hazardous Waste Site



Cannot sell property becauseof contamination .700 .946 3.87 .015**

Friends are unwilling to visit –.943 .912 7.04 .007***Noisy trucks and equipment 1.128 .889 6.75 .006***Increased population of vermin –1.804 .863 10.29 .004***Degradation of the community 2.464 .795 14.49 .000***Graffiti –.617 .774 2.92 .000***Perceived health impact –1.145 .754 3.87 .000***Impact of site on drinking

water supply .487 .745 1.24 .000***Group Means (centroids)

Citywide (1) –.529Agriculture Street (2) .635

Canonical correlation (Cr) .505 (Cr2 = .255)Eigenvalue .342Wilks’s lambda .745χ2 (chi-square, df 8) 30.59***


Actual Group N 1 2

(1) Citywide 60 47 (78.3%) 13 (21.7%)(2) Agriculture Street 50 16 (32.0%) 34 (68.0%)

NOTE: Grouped cases classified correctly = 73.64%.**p < .05. ***p < .01.

with living in a contaminated landscape than their counterparts in a non-NPLenvironment? As aforementioned, a number of studies have explored thedeterminants of responsible or proenvironmental behavior (e.g., Ebreo,Hershey, & Vining, 1999; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Manzo &Weinstein, 1987; McKenzie-Mohr, Nemiroff, Beers, & Desmarais, 1995).Perceptions of environmental threat, knowledge of environmental issues,knowledge of environmental action strategies and tactics of implementation,sense of responsibility, identification of the culprits, and locus of control havebeen found to correlate with positive environmental action (Hallman &Wandersman, 1992; McKenzie-Mohr et al., 1995). Intuitively, the residentsof the NPL Agriculture Street fully cognizant of the extent of contamination,health risks, and looming conflict over remedial plans would be most likely toadopt positive environmental action as an adaptive measure compared to theresidents of non-NPL communities.

In the survey, respondents were presented 10 potential proenvironmentalbehaviors for rating on a frequency of practice scale of 1 (never) to 4(always). Table 10 reports the means and standard deviations of responses bythe two groups. With the exception of attending environmental meetingsand participation in local opposition to LULUs, the means of the responsesfor the two groups are very close, suggesting that self-reported proenviron-mental behavior characteristics may not discriminate substantially betweenNPL Agriculture Street respondents and respondents from non-NPLcommunities.

The results of the MDA performed for proenvironmental behavior are pre-sented in Table 11. A stepwise variable selection procedure included onlyfive items in the computation of discriminant function coefficients. Similar tothe previous models, standardized structure coefficients are used for ease ofinterpretation. Although the SFCs for the five items retained in the analysisare significant atp < .01, the test for equality of group centroids for NPLAgriculture Street and non-NPL communities indicates that the variablesspecified are weak discriminants between the groups. Also, the variablesaccounted for only 17.5% of the variance in the discriminant analysis. Thefact that the non-NPL respondents are mostly Whites and characterized by ahigher socioeconomic status and home ownership suggests they may exhibita higher degree of environmentalism, especially involving donating moneyfor environmental causes, boycotting or switching products with demon-strated polluting effects, and so on (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). Thus, the sig-nificance of such questionnaire items as “contributing money forenvironmental cause” and “buying products with lower polluting effects” arequite consistent with the findings reported in the social bases of


environmental concern literature (Jones, 1998; Jones & Dunlap, 1992; VanLiere & Dunlap, 1980).

The results in Tables 10 and 11 only partially support the hypothesis thatthe residents of an NPL community would be more likely to engage in posi-tive environmental actions than the residents of a non-NPL community. Therespondents from the former were more involved in attending environmentalmeetings, a cleanup drive, local opposition to LULUs, contributing time andlabor, writing legislators, and door-to-door campaigns. These represent theproenvironmental social actions the residents reported they have undertakenin coping with the reality of community contamination.

THE SUBJECTIVE COMMUNITYLIFE SATISFACTION DIFFERENTIALS

In the last MDA conducted, the major differences in subjective commu-nity life satisfaction of NPL and non-NPL community groups are assessed.The community life satisfaction items in the survey asked respondents toindicate whether they areextremely satisfied(4),satisfied(3),unsatisfied(2),or extremely unsatisfied(1) with life in general, personal health, closefriends, environmental sanitation, current marital status, standard of living,


TABLE 10Group Means and Standard Deviations of

Respondents’ Self-Ratings of Proenvironmental Behavior


Switch products for ecological reasons 2.40 (0.79) 2.36 (1.61)Buy products with lower polluting effects 2.70 (1.43) 2.30 (1.27)Refuse to buy polluting products 2.35 (0.88) 2.42 (1.34)Attend environmental meetings 1.82 (1.53) 2.10 (1.69)Join a cleanup drive 1.73 (0.80) 2.26 (1.32)Participation in local opposition to

Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs) 1.58 (0.77) 2.10 (1.39)Contributing money for environmental

cause 1.83 (0.81) 1.90 (1.31)Contributing time and labor for

environment 1.73 (1.18) 1.98 (1.27)Write or call legislators 1.93 (1.30) 2.00 (1.68)Door-to-door environmental campaign 1.50 (0.79) 1.76 (1.38)

NOTE: Rating scale: 4 = always, 3 = often, 2 = seldom, and 1 = never. NPL = Environmental Protec-tion Agency National Priority List.

neighborhood’s, safety and peace, aesthetics, neighborhood as a place to callhome, and identification and placement of a site on the NPL. These are usedas discriminating (predictor) variables. Three additional items included arethe state of health self-rated asexcellent(1),good(2), fair (3),poor (4), andextremely poor(5); community as a place to live rated using the same scale asfor the state of health; and perception of neighborhood change rated asforbetter(1),staying just about the same(2), andfor worse(3) (see Table 12).

The means and standard deviations of selected subjective life satisfactionmeasures are displayed in Table 12. With the exception of current maritalstatus, the group means for the non-NPL group are much higher than for NPL


TABLE 11Discriminant Analysis of Respondents’Adaptive Proenvironmental Behavior


Coefficient Lambda F Ratio Significance

Join a cleanup drive –.730 .942 2.16 .011***Attend environmental meetings .610 .847 2.96 .001***Buy products with lower polluting

effects .739 .878 6.92 .001***Participation in local opposition to

Locally Unwanted Land Uses(LULUs) –.995 .858 4.16 .001***

Contributing money forenvironmental cause .413 .826 1.48 .001***

Group Means (centroids)(1) Citywide .416(2) Agriculture .499



Actual Group N 1 2

(1) Non-NPL (citywide) 60 39 (65.0%) 21 (35.0%)(2) NPL Agriculture Street 50 15 (30.0%) 35 (70.0%)

NOTE: Grouped cases correctly classified = 67.27%. NPL = Environmental Protection Agency Na-tional Priority List.***p < .01.

Agriculture Street. These findings indicate a generally depressed quality oflife for the NPL community relative to other populations of NOMA. Thegroups also differ in the ratings of their specific community as a place to liveand perceived neighborhood change. Given the fact that there is a direct inter-action between physical and psychosocial stressors (Freund & McGuire,1991), the relatively lower measures of subjective community life satisfac-tion in Agriculture Street can be better understood.

Table 13 presents the results of the last MDA performed. Through a step-wise variable selection procedure (minimizing Wilks’s lambda), 10 variablesout of the 14 in Table 12 are retained in the model. The SFCs, Wilks’s lambda,group centroids, canonical correlation, eigenvalue, and classification resultsare presented, all suggesting a strong discriminating power of the predictorvariables. The discrimination between the two groups is more pronounced inthis model; specifically, the state of health and well-being, community as a


TABLE 12Group Means and Standard Deviations of Selected

Community Life Satisfaction Measures


Life in general in my neighborhood 3.17 (.78) 2.54 (.73)Personal health condition 3.25 (1.26) 2.72 (.81)Close friends and neighbors 3.33 (.95) 3.18 (1.02)Sanitation and environmental protection 3.03 (1.07) 2.86 (2.01)Current marital status 3.48 (1.52) 4.00 (2.43)Current standard of living 3.00 (.71) 2.92 (1.18)Neighborhood compared to other places 3.37 (1.13) 2.46 (1.07)Safety and peace in neighborhood 3.03 (.92) 2.32 (.89)Aesthetics or attractiveness of community 3.32 (1.33) 2.52 (1.27)Neighborhood as a place to be proud

of and called a permanent home 3.40 (1.30) 2.40 (.94)Identification and placement of site

on NPL 4.00 (2.98) 3.90 (3.30)State of health and well-beinga 1.80 (.63) 2.48 (.79)Community as a place to liveb 2.43 (1.93) 2.90 (1.20)Perceived neighborhood changec 2.03 (.64) 2.40 (.61)

NOTE: The first 11 items are based on 1 (extremely unsatisfied) to 4 (extremely satisfied) rating.NPL = Environmental Protection Agency National Priority List.a.The state of health was rated as 1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = fair, 4 = poor, and 5 = extremely poor.b. Community as a place to live was rated as 1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = fair, 4 = poor, and 5 =extremely poor.c.Neighborhood change was rated as 1 = for better, 2 = just about the same, and 3 = for the worse.

place to be proud of and called a home, personal health condition, and satis-faction with current marital status are very strong in predicting group differ-ences (p < .001). Also, the test for equality of group centroids for the twogroups indicates a wide distance (–.758 for non-NPL and .909 for NPL) andsuggests that the selected community life satisfaction measures strongly dis-criminate between the two groups. These variables collectively account for


TABLE 13Discriminant Analysis of Selected Community Life Satisfaction Measures


Variable Coefficient Lambda F Ratio Significance

State of health and well-being .822 .811 24.19 .000***Place to be proud of and called

a permanent home –.828 .727 10.75 .000***Current marital status .431 .698 6.84 .000***Aesthetics or attractiveness of

community –.325 .673 4.02 .000***Identification and placement of

site on NPL .438 .647 6.28 .000***Personal health condition .466 .630 4.24 .000***Sanitation and environmental

protection .309 .613 3.23 .000***Community as a place to live –.220 .605 1.64 .000***Current standard of living .226 .596 2.36 .000***Neighborhood as compared to

others –.254 .588 1.43 .000***Group means (centroids)

(1) Citywide non-NPL –.758(2) Agriculture Street NPL .909



Actual Group N 1 2

(1) Citywide non-NPL 60 51 (85.0%) 9 (15.0%)(2) Agriculture Street NPL 50 13 (26.0%) 37 (74.0%)

NOTE: Grouped cases correctly classified = 80%.NPL = Environmental Protection Agency NationalPriority List.***p < .001.

41% of the variance in the MDA. The classification results of 80% of cor-rectly classified grouped cases show the success (and appropriateness) of thepredictor variables specified. The model’s chi-square of 54.74 (10df) is sta-tistically significant atp < .001.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The research questions raised in this study have been carefully addressedthrough empirical analyses of available qualitative and quantitative informa-tion on an endangered community, enduring people, environmental healthproblems, and the local context of environmental action. Clearly, race anddistance to waste sites are the most significant factors predicting membershipin NPL or non-NPL communities, controlling for all other factors. Other vari-ables including level of education and household income are secondary tothese factors. In response to the question concerning whether the respondentsfrom an NPL site would rate their community differently from the non-NPLcommunities in NOMA, the results of the survey and the subsequent analysesshow that the former clearly indicated that their community has changed forthe worse and the latter perceived no change in the quality of their communi-ties. The findings for the non-NPL respondents seem consistent with the find-ings in other metropolitan areas in the country (Greenberg et al., 1994).

In general, most respondents in a community contaminated by a hazard-ous waste site found the characteristics or properties of an NPL site to bequite disturbing, more than their counterparts in other areas of the city. Bothenvironmental and other social problems were rated as somewhat serious bythe Agriculture Street (NPL) respondents, whereas the respondents fromnon-NPL communities rated these as no problem, with the exception of peri-odic flooding. Thus, the two groups are clearly separated on perceptions ofenvironmental and social problems in their respective communities and thecity as a whole. Based on MDA results, it can be concluded that the closer theresidence of respondents to an NPL site, the lower the income and the higherthe perception of diminution of environmental quality, seriousness of healthand environmental problems, and other undesirable properties associatedwith LULUs.

Environmental illnesses are more localized in a contaminated communitysuch as found in Agriculture Street. With the exception of weakness of thebody, the frequencies and group means for self-reported illnesses are muchhigher for Agriculture Street respondents relative to others. The most critical


and significant environmental illnesses discriminating between the twogroups have been identified in Table 7. Hence, the hypothesis that the peopleliving in (or adjacent to) an officially confirmed contaminated communityare more likely to link their somatic problems to poor environmental condi-tions than the people in a noncontaminated community found strong supportin the analyses. The most disturbing characteristics of the NPL site that mayhave economic, health, and psychosocial impacts on individual residents arenot perceived equally by the two groups.

Out of the six MDAs performed, the proenvironmental behavior model isthe weakest, judging from the group centroids, canonical correlation, andpercentage of grouped cases correctly classified. Nevertheless, proenviron-mental behaviors involving economic expenditures are characteristics ofnon-NPL groups, and those involving direct participation are found amongthe NPL group who are relatively of lower socioeconomic status (see Table 2).Thus, the hypothesis that the residents of an NPL community would be morelikely to exhibit proenvironmental behavior than their counterparts in thenon-NPL communities found a partial support. As aforementioned, thoseproenvironmental behaviors involving personal involvement, protests, andcontribution of time and efforts are found more among the NPL communityrespondents than the non-NPL respondents, who exhibited more economicproenvironmental behavior (Ebreo et al., 1999; McKenzie-Mohr et al., 1995;Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). In fact, community residents in the NPL siteshave been found to engage in popular epidemiology, conducting communityhealth surveys about the health status of the residents affected by environ-mental contamination (Levine, 1982; Novotny, 1998). The strongest dis-criminant model is the subjective community life satisfaction MDA. Asexpected, those respondents in an NPL Agriculture Street community areless satisfied with most measures of life satisfaction relative to the otherrespondents in NOMA.

The socioeconomic disparity between the NPL and non-NPL groups sug-gests the existence of a serious problem of environmental inequity in NOMA.Among several policy implications of the present findings, the immediateand long-term health problems, neighborhood dislocation, and the conse-quent economic, social, and psychological problems affecting the inhabi-tants of communities on an endangered list such as LASRIS and NPL inparticular need to be factored into any equation of remedial measures. Cor-recting past injustices through an equitable compensation for people undulyburdened with LULUs and other environmental stressors should be pivotal tothe policy of environmental justice.


Undoubtedly, additional research is needed to determine the actual inten-sity of environmentally induced illnesses among the residents of endangeredcommunities such as Agriculture Street and others on NPL in the CancerCorridor. The salient questions raised at the outset in this study have beenaddressed. However, there are still a number of questions yet to be answeredon the issues of community contamination, environmental inequity, racism,and the health consequences. There is a critical need to look at the actual envi-ronmentally induced illnesses across race, age, sex, socioeconomic, andother demographic characteristics including duration of residency and theextent of exposure to xenobiotics in those communities hosting various typesof hazardous waste facilities and petrochemical plants. The synergisticeffects of multiple chemical exposures particularly deserve concertedresearch efforts in the nearest future.

NOTES

1.Brownfieldsrefer to old abandoned (or fallow) derelict manufacturing/industrial sites withactual and potential risks of contamination of the buildings, equipment, and surrounding land,water, and air.

2. Throughout this article, Agriculture Street Landfill Superfund site is referred to as theNPL community, and other areas included for comparison are designated as non-NPL communi-ties. The NPL versus non-NPL dichotomy serves as a variation of quasi experimental designs inwhich specific attributes of a group of subjects exposed to a unique condition are compared to thecharacteristics of others without such a condition. In this case, the experience and perception ofthe respondents living in a Superfund community are compared to those in non-Superfund com-munities. Rather than on social aggregates from the parishes/counties or the entire StandardMetropolitan Area (SMA) of New Orleans, the focus is on the respondents from the NPL andnon-NPL communities.

3. About 20 completed interviews came from each of the three non-NPL communities.4. Given the sampling strategy for the NPL and non-NPL respondents, it is fully acknowl-

edged that the present sample is not by any means fully representative of the population of NewOrleans SMA. However, it represents the general pattern of environmental inequity by race,neighborhood, and socioeconomic factors as demonstrated in the subsequent analyses.


APPENDIXConfirmed and Potential Hazardous

Waste Sites in New Orleans Metropolitan Area

Site and Status Parish City

Confirmed sitesAgriculture Street Landfill Orleans New OrleansAmerican Creosote-Metairie Jefferson MetairieEdward Levy Metals Orleans New OrleansGeneral Chemical Corporation Jefferson MarreroMalter International Jefferson GretnaThompson-Hayward Chemical Company Orleans New OrleansWestbank Asbestos Jefferson Marrero

Potential sitesA-1 Disposal Service Jefferson KennerAtlas Erection and Crane Rental Orleans New OrleansC. F. NAFCO Jefferson HarveyCelotex Corporation Jefferson MarreroCharity Hospital School of Nursing Orleans New OrleansChevron-Harvey Station Orleans HarveyChevron-New Orleans Station Orleans New OrleansCoast Guard Base Orleans New OrleansFreeport Pipeline Company Jefferson GrandGraphic Ink Corporation Jefferson HarahanGreen Walker Galvanizing Jefferson JeffersonGretna Gas Light and Fuel Company Jefferson GretnaGretna Machine and Iron Works Jefferson HarveyHiggins Industries Inc. Orleans New OrleansHydril Company Chemical Dump Jefferson HarveyJefferson City Gas and Light Company Orleans New OrleansJohn Kennedy High School Orleans New OrleansLiquid Air Corporation Orleans New OrleansNew Orleans Gas and Light Company Orleans New OrleansNew Orleans Wood Preserving Orleans New OrleansReeves Company Orleans New OrleansReliable Disposal Jefferson JeffersonShell Pipeline Company Orleans New OrleansSugarland Disposal 1 & 2 Jefferson MetairieWestwego Aviation Inc. Jefferson Westwego

SOURCE: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (1996).


REFERENCES

Adeola, F. O. (1994). Environmental hazards, health, and racial inequity in hazardous waste dis-tribution.Environment and Behavior, 26, 99-126.

Adeola, F. O. (1995). Demographic and socioeconomic differentials in residential propinquity tohazardous waste sites and environmental illness.Journal of the Community DevelopmentSociety, 26(1), 15-40.

Adeola, F. O. (1998). Cross-national environmentalism differentials: Empirical evidence fromcore and non-core nations.Society and Natural Resources, 11, 339-364.

Albrecht, S. L., Robert, G. A., & Amir, S. (1996). The siting of radioactive waste facilities: Whatare the effects on communities?Rural Sociology, 61, 649-673.

Anderson, B. (1992, May 12). Plant sites: Is racism an issue?The Advocate, pp. 1A, 5A.Anderton, D. L., Anderson, A. B., Rossi, P. H., Oakes, J. M., Fraser, M. R., Weber, E. W., & Cal-

abrese, E. J. (1994). Hazardous waste facilities: Environmental equity issues in metropolitanareas.Evaluation Review, 18, 123-140.

Babbie, E. R. (1990).Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Baum, A., Fleming, R., & Singer, J. E. (1983). Coping with victimization by technological disas-

ter.Journal of Social Issues, 39, 117-138.Beck, U. (1992).Risk society: Toward a new modernity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Beck, U. (1996). Risk society and the provident state. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne

(Eds.),Risk, environment and modernity: Toward a new ecology(pp. 27-43). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Been, V. (1994). Locally undesirable land uses in minority neighborhoods: Disproportionatesiting or market dynamics.Yale Law Journal, 103, 1383-1422.

Blumenthal, D. S. (1985). A perspective on environmental health. In D. S. Blumenthal (Ed.),Introduction to environmental health(pp. 1-13). New York: Springer.

Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. (1979).Laying waste: Love Canal and the poisoning of America.New York: Random House.

Brown, M. H. (1987).The toxic cloud: The poisoning of America’s air. New York: Harper &Row.

Brown, P., & Mikkelsen, E. J. (1989).No safe place: Toxic waste leukemia and communityaction. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bullard, R. D. (1990).Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, CO:Westview.

Bullard, R. D. (1996). Environmental justice: It’s more than waste facility siting.Social ScienceQuarterly, 77, 493-499.

Capek, S. M. (1993). The environmental justice frame: A conceptual discussion and an applica-tion. Social Problems, 40, 5-24.

Couch, S. R., & Kroll-Smith, S. (1994). Environmental controversies, interactional resources,and rural communities: Siting versus exposure disputes.Rural Sociology, 59, 25-44.

Cox, K. R. (1979).Location and public problems: A political geography of the contemporaryworld. Chicago: Maaroufa Press.

Cvetkovich, G., & Earle, T. C. (1992). Environmental hazards and the public.Journal of SocialIssues, 48(4), 1-20.

Ebreo, A., Hershey, J., & Vining, J. (1999). Reducing solid waste: Linking recycling to environ-mentally responsible consumerism.Environment and Behavior, 31, 107-135.

Edelstein, M. (1988).Contaminated communities: The social and psychological impacts of resi-dential toxic exposure. Boulder, CO: Westview.


Edwards, B. (1995). With liberty and environmental justice for all: The emergence and challengeof grassroots environmentalism in the United States. In B. R. Taylor (Ed.),Ecological resis-tance movements: The global emergence of radical and popular environmentalism(pp. 35-55). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1996).Betrayal of science and reason: How anti-environmentalrhetoric threatens our future. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Environmental Protection Agency. (1992).Environmental equity: Reducing risk for all commu-nities. Washington, DC: Author.

Erickson, K. (1991). A new species of trouble. In S. R. Couch & J. S. Kroll-Smith (Eds.),Com-munities at risk: Collective responses to technological hazards(pp. 11-29). New York: PeterLang.

Farley, J. E. (1995).Majority-minority relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Faupel, C. E., Bailey, C., & Griffin, G. (1991). Local media roles in defining hazardous waste as a

social problem: The case of Sumter County, Alabama.Sociological Spectrum,11, 293-319.Finch, S. (1994, August 21). Poisoned property.The Times Picayune, pp. A1, A4.Freudenberg, N. (1984).Not in our backyards: Community action for health and environment.

New York: Monthly Review Press.Freund, P.E.S., & McGuire, M. B. (1991).Health, illness, and the social body: A critical sociol-

ogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.General Accounting Office. (1983).Siting of hazardous waste landfills and their correlations

with racial and economic status of surrounding communities. Washington, DC: Author.Greenberg, M., Schneider, D., & Martell, J. (1994). Hazardous waste sites, stress, and neighbor-

hood quality in USA.The Environmentalist, 14(2), 93-105.Hall, R. H. (1990).Health and the global environment. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Hallmann, W. K., & Wandersman, A. (1992). Attribution of responsibility and individual and

collective coping with environmental threats.Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 101-118.Higgins, R. R. (1994). Race, pollution, and the mastery of nature.Environmental Ethics, 16,

251-264.Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on

responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis.Journal of Environmental Education,18, 1-8.

Huberty, C. J. (1994).Applied discriminant analysis. New York: John Wiley.Irwin, A. (1995).Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development.

New York: Routledge.Jones, R. E. (1998). Black concern for the environment: Myth versus reality.Society and Natural

Resources, 11, 209-228.Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they

changed over time?Rural Sociology, 57, 28-47.Klecka, W. R. (1980).Discriminant analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Kohlhase, J. (1991). The impact of toxic waste sites on housing values.Journal of Urban Eco-

nomics, 30, 1-26.Kriesel, W., Terence, J. C., & Keeler, A. G. (1996). Neighborhood exposure to toxic releases:

Are there racial inequities?Growth and Change, 27, 479-499.Lave, L. B., & Upton, A. C. (1987). Regulating toxic chemicals in the environment. In L. B. Lave &

A. C. Upton (Eds.),Toxic chemicals, health and the environment(pp. 280-293). Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lawson, B. (1995). Living for the city: Urban United States and environmental justice. In L. Wes-tra & P. S. Wenz (Eds.),Faces of environmental racism: Confronting issues of global justice(pp. 41-55). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.


Levine, A. (1982).Love Canal: Science, politics, and people. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Louisiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1993).The battle for

environmental justice in Louisiana: Government, industry, and the people. Washington, DC:Author.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. (1996).Potential and confirmed sites. Louisi-ana site remediation information system, inactive and abandoned sites division. BatonRouge, LA: Author.

Manzo, L. C., & Weinstein, M. D. (1987). Behavioral commitment to environmental protection:A study of active and non-active members of the Sierra Club.Environment and Behavior, 19,673-694.

Maser, J. D., & Solomon, S. D. (1990). Psychosocial and psychological consequences of expo-sure to extreme stressors.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1725-1732.

McGrath, J. E. (1980). What are social issues? Timeliness and treatment of topics in theJournalof Social Issues. Journal of Social Issues, 36, 98-108.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., Nemiroff, L. S., Beers, L., & Desmarais, S. (1995). Determinants ofresponsible environmental behavior.Journal of Social Issues, 51, 139-156.

Mohai, P. (1996). Environmental justice or analytic justice? Reexamining historical hazardouswaste landfill siting patterns in metropolitan Texas.Social Science Quarterly,77, 500-507.

Mohai, P., & Bryant, B. (1992). Environmental racism: Reviewing the evidence. In B. Bryant &P. Mohai (Eds.),Race and the incidence of environmental hazards: A time for discourse(pp. 163-176). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Napton, M. L., & Day, F. A. (1992). Polluted neighborhoods in Texas: Who lives there?Environ-ment and Behavior, 24, 508-526.

Novotny, P. (1998). Popular epidemiology and the struggle for community health in the envi-ronmental justice movement. In D. Faber (Ed.),The struggle for ecological democracy(pp. 137-158). New York: Guilford.

O’Byrne, J. (1994, August 21). Old dumps become new dangers.The Times Picayune, p. A4.O’Byrne, J., & Schleifstein, M. (1991, February 18). Invisible poisons: No one is sure about

effects on our health.The Times Picayune, pp. A1, A7.Perrow, C. (1984).Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic

Books.Picou, S. J., & Gill, D. A. (1996). The ExxonValdezoil spill and chronic psychological stress.

American Fisheries Symposium, 18, 879-893.Pollock, P. H., & Vittas, M. E. (1995). Who bears the burdens of environmental pollution? Race,

ethnicity, and environmental equity in Florida.Social Science Quarterly, 76, 294-310.Sarokin, D., & Schulkin, J. (1994). Environmental justice: Co-evolution of environmental con-

cerns and social justice.The Environmentalist, 14(2), 121-129.Schleifstein, M. (1997, May 21). Louisiana 2nd in the nation in toxins release.The Times Pica-

yune, p. A5.Sexton, K. (1992). Cause for immediate concern: Minorities and the poor clearly are more

exposed.EPA Journal, 18(1), 38-39.Shechter, M., & Kim, M. (1991). Valuation of pollution abatement benefits: Direct and indirect

measurement.Journal of Urban Economics, 30, 133-151.Unequal protection: The racial divide in environmental law [Special insert]. (1992).The

National Law Review, 15(3).United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. (1987).Toxic waste and race in the

United States. New York: Author.Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review

of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence.Public Opinion Quarterly,44, 181-197.


Vaughan, E., & Nordenstam, B. (1991). The perception of environmental risks among ethnicallydiverse groups.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 29-60.

Warner, C. (1997, May 19). Fix or flee: Residents are at odds.The Times Picayune, pp. B1-B2.Wernette, D. R., & Nieves, L. A. (1992). Breathing polluted air: Minorities are disproportion-

ately exposed.EPA Journal, 18(1), 16-17.Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge

divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.),Risk, environment and modernity:Toward a new ecology(pp. 44-83). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yandle, T., & Burton, D. (1996). Reexamining environmental justice: A statistical analysis ofhistorical hazardous waste landfill siting patterns in metropolitan Texas.Social ScienceQuarterly, 77, 477-492.

Zimmerman, R. (1993). Social equity and environmental risk.Risk Analysis, 13, 649-666.


ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2000Adeola / TOXIC ...jdericks/QOL/Literature/Adeola.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2000Adeola / TOXIC ...jdericks/QOL/Literature/Adeola.pdf ·...