Urban Planning – Environmental Justice Theory
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice as “fair treatment and meaningful involvement” of all people irrespective of their racial, socio-economical or political status in development as well as implementation of environmental laws, regulations or policies (2016). However, the burden of adverse environmental impacts of industrial or commercial developmental projects is not equally distributed among people of all socio-economic classes. While it is the wealthier project proponents who cause the environmental stress, often people belonging to a particular race, color or ethnicity and economically weaker sections face the negative impacts. This is evident in rapidly growing cities, where the elite class can afford to retain their quality of life and space, while the weaker sections suffer from air pollution, water contamination, waste dumping, soil pollution etc. Hence, urban planning has to incorporate the practice of proper environmental impact assessment to ensure social justice prevails, and there is sustainable development inclusive of all sections of the society. Skewed urban development would only lead to increased disparities, and with a growing population putting more pressure on available resources upholding environmental justice could be quite a challenge to city planners.
Origin of Environmental Justice Movement
Protests against environmental racism sparked the environmental justice movement, and one noteworthy incident is the uprising of Warren County’s colored community against the siting of a hazardous waste landfill at Afton in 1982 (Skelton and Miller, 2006). Warren County was the poorest in North Carolina with 65% of African-American population (Szasz and Meuser, 1997). The landfill was intended for toxic PCB laced soil, and there was a potential danger of PCB leaching into the community’s drinking water supplies. Though the Civil Rights movement of 1960’s also called for environmental justice, it was not identified until 1980’s that minority races comprising African-Americans, Latinos and Native Americans suffered disproportionately from negative impacts of siting hazardous waste landfills within the southeastern states (Skelton and Miller, 2006). Several cases of environmental racism were reported in 1980’s and 1990’s, and in 1992 the environmental justice act was introduced to protect colored communities from adverse effects of environmental pollution (Skelton and Miller, 2006).
Environmental Injustice - difference in Theory & Practice
According to Gelobter (1993), urban environmental injustice has three dimensions health related issues, spatial injustice and structural or economical injustice. Life expectancy is lower in African-American people, and there is increased prevalence of asthma among colored people living in New York’s densely populated centers. High infant hospital admission rates and lead poisoning among colored people is also reported. All these disproportionate health impacts are due to poor air quality in urban regions especially inhabited by colored people (Gelobter, 1993). Minorities and lower income groups are also forced to occupy spaces near industries or polluted centers, suburbs without proper sanitation facilities or access to utilities. Finally, there is devaluation of labor due to attraction of more people into cities. Laborers put up with poor quality of life, abandon rural areas, and there is disproportionate stress on urban areas, eventually leading to land use changes in the rural landscape as well. While several environmental injustice cases have been reported, and incorporation of social equality principles in planning process is advocated, there is a large gap between theory and practice. Several factors such as political influence and protecting monetary interests of capitalists dominate ethical ideals of planners, and prevent them from making unpretentious decisions.
Planning Theory
Urban planning is design and regulation of urban space based on various urban activities, considering the social, economical as well as environmental impacts of those activities (Fainstein, 2015). Urban planning procedure is based on theories developed by experienced planners and practitioners. There are different theoretical approaches to planning including rational approach, transactive approach, communicative approach, advocacy approach, radical approach, and the humanist approach (Whittemore, 2014). Rational planning is a spatial approach, incorporating aspects such as movement of traffic, conserving green space etc. But, sometimes this approach could be socially insensitive, as it does not consider intangible aspects of urban development (Whittemore, 2014). Rational planning is a quantitative approach that uses modeling, prediction and design. Transactive planning and radical planning are community-based approaches, in which public opinion is incorporated into the planning process. The advocacy planning model necessitates that all sections of the society are equally represented in the planning process to protect the interests of underprivileged and communicative approach looks at communication as an effective tool to developing a good plan (Whittermore, 2014). Planning is a continuous process, and urban planners constantly learn from problems, hence planning theories evolve with time incorporating principles of social justice and natural conservation.
How Environmental Justice Theory relates to Urban Planning
According to Washington and Strong (1997), urban planners have the responsibility to ascertain environmental justice prevails as they have a strong role in zoning process, permitting land use changes and siting of various facilities. Further, there is a need to involve public, and encourage local participation in the planning process to prevent disproportionate environmental injustice. According to the executive order of 1994 on Federal actions to address environmental justice, minorities and low-income communities must have access to public information and participate in issues related to human health and environment (EPA, 2016). Main environmental issues of concern in urban planning are air pollution, heat island effect and impacts of climate change (Shepard, 2007). In most cities zoning was initially done to aggregate land uses and this concentrates the adverse environmental effects among one sect of the population (Shepard, 2007). This lead to urban sprawling, abandoned contaminated sites, more vehicular pollution due to people transportation from far suburbs to the city, encroachment of green spaces in suburbs, etc.
Wilson, Hutson and Mujahid (2008) discuss how urban revitalization can be used in planning built environment to benefit citizens irrespective of caste or color differences. They suggest that public health; environmental law and urban planning departments must work together to decrease inequitable development and metropolitan fragmentation (p. 214). Noxious land uses must be limited and exposure of minorities must be reduced. Planning aspects that can be used to prevent environmental injustice include conservation of green spaces, improving transportation facilities and location of environmental preservation districts within communities, which restrict intensive land use and pollution (Wilson, Hutson and Mujahid, 2008). Planning and zoning are thus valuable tools used to improve physical and social environment of cities, and if they incorporate environmental justice theory, wholesome sustainable growth can be achieved.
Maantay (2002) deciphers the connection between zoning laws and environmental justice. Zoning determines the type of land uses and designates a specific area for each use within a municipality. But, mostly zoning is done through a political process and acts as a “gatekeeper” for noxious land uses (Maantay, 2002, p. 572). Maantay studied the location of manufacturing (M) zones in New York City and their implications in public health. Maantay found that people living adjacent to M zones belonged to the minority group. Zoning was originally intended to protect the health, safety and welfare of urban residents, but it excluded certain section of the public. Now, the greatest challenge is to rezone cities and adopt better strategies such as mixed zoning to accommodate people without compromising on environmental health or justice.
Both Shepard’s (2007) and Maantay’s (2002) studies show the relevance of environmental justice to urban planning process, and also discuss about the adverse impacts of overlooking the relationship. However, incorporating environmental justice into planning is a very complex task.
Challenges to Incorporating Environmental Justice in Planning
According to Campbell (1996) sustainable development can be depicted to be at the center of a planner’s triangle with conflicting goals at each corner. Social justice and equality forms one corner, while economic growth and environmental protection form the other two corners. A planner focused only on economic growth will contradict with both environmental conservation and equality in property distribution. Environmental prioritization will allow space only for green projects that might lead to waste minimization, but not much capital growth. Finally, a social justice view towards planning will project the city as a competitive space, in which equality must be established. Sustainable development is possible only when a planner balances all three nodes of the triangle and does not take sides.
According to Richardson (2005) though environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a valuable tool for planners to develop sustainable urban projects, environmental assessments are governed by power in reality. Richardson (2005) states a case of road transport project, in which EIA was separated from public opinion, and the final decision was taken in a political domain. Several issues such as siting area for dumping construction wastes, presence of alternative routes, and local ecological impact were not discussed in public domain. Richardson also discusses another case of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of a transport-planning project in England, which came out only with the adverse outcomes of various options, but not appropriate solutions for them (2005). SEA is a comparative study that analyses the impacts of several options for implementing a project. Thus a good SEA should identify a best option to implement a project after detailed analysis, and must be grounded on environmental justice (Connelly and Richardson, 2005). SEA should not be completely expert led, and must involve public opinion to avoid any “systemic injustice”, even if the decision-making process becomes more complex (Connelly and Richardson, 2005).
Jackson and Illsley (2007) discuss about a Scottish model of SEA with an environmental justice perspective for public private partnership (PPP) projects. This model aims at developing sustainable projects in Scotland, which incorporate elements of equity in exposure, impact and change, at the planning stage itself. But, there are several hurdles in implementing a project especially with dominating influences of power and economic values. Environmental justice will remain a theory and not become a practice until urban planning is grounded on strong ethical principles for the greater good.
Conclusion
Environmental justice cannot be excluded from planning approaches, if an urban setting should remain sustainable. With climate change impacts threatening the whole world, the underprivileged class of the society will be cornered to noxious spaces, if appropriate preventive and corrective action is not taken. But, change can happen only if the government, public, community organizations and regulatory instruments act jointly. Though the process of redeveloping or rezoning a city is complex, tools such as EIAs, SEAs and other strategic models can help planners develop smart cities with equal opportunities for all. Future, developmental projects would become more holistic and inclusive, if the welfare of all sections of the society is considered.
References
Campbell, S. (1996). Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Readings in Planning Theory
Fainstein/Readings in Planning Theory, 214-240. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from https://my.vanderbilt.edu/greencities/files/2014/08/Campbell1.pdf.
Connelly, S., & Richardson, T. (2005). Value-driven SEA: Time for an environmental justice
perspective? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(4), 391-409. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen_Connelly
/publication/222657190_Value-driven_SEA_Time_for_an_environmental_justice_
perspective/links/0c96052a82baf41a6b000000.pdf.
EPA. (2016, February 22). Basic Information. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from
http://www3.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/basics/ejbackground.html
Feinstein, S. S. (2015, February 11). Urban planning. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from
http://www.britannica.com/topic/urban-planning
Gelobter, M. (1993). The Meaning of Urban Environmental Justice. Fordham Urban Law
.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1412&context=ulj
Jackson, T., & Illsley, B. (2007). An analysis of the theoretical rationale for using strategic
environmental assessment to deliver environmental justice in the light of the Scottish Environmental Assessment Act. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(7), 607-623. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/
Tony_Jackson/publication/248537092_An_analysis_of_the_theoretical_rationale_for_using_strategic_environmental_assessment_to_deliver_environmental_justice_in_the_light_of_the_Scottish_Environmental_Assessment_Act/links/02e7e52d05f15d4731000000.pdf.
Maantay, J. (2002). Zoning Law, Health, and Environmental Justice: What's the Connection?
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics J Law Med Ethics, 30(4), 572-593. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/deannss/geography/
publications/JLME_Maantay.pdf
Richardson, T. (2005). Environmental assessment and planning theory: Four short stories
about power, multiple rationality, and ethics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(4), 341-365. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/222568457_'Environmental_Assessment_and_Planning_Theory_Four_Short_Stories_about_Power_Multiple_Rationality_and_Ethics'
Shepard, P. M. (2007, October 24). Environmental Justice, Health and Sustainability.
Retrieved February 29, 2016, from http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/docs/shepard.pdf
Skelton, R., & Miller, V. (2006, December 10). The Environmental Justice Movement.
Retrieved February 29, 2016, from http://www.nrdc.org/ej/history/hej.asp
Szasz, A., & Meuser, M. (1997). Environmental Inequalities: Literature Review and
Proposals for New Directions in Research and Theory. Current Sociology, 45(3), 99-120. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from http://core.ecu.edu/soci/vanwilligenm/
szasz.pdf
Washington, R. O., & Strong, D. (1997). A Model for Teaching Environmental Justice in a
Planning Curriculum. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(4), 280-290. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.425.8525&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Whittemore, A. H. (2014). Practitioners Theorize, Too: Reaffirming Planning Theory in a
Survey of Practitioners' Theories. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(1), 76-85. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from https://www.pibc.bc.ca/sites/default/
files/ExamB-A.Whittemore-2014-Practitioners Theorize, Too.pdf.
Wilson, S., Hutson, M., & Mujahid, M. (2008). How Planning and Zoning Contribute to
Inequitable Development, Neighborhood Health, and Environmental Injustice. Environmental Justice, 1(4), 211-216. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sacoby_Wilson/publication/228633961_How_planning_and_zoning_contribute_to_inequitable_development_neighborhood_health_and_environmental_justice/links/0046352bf4ebcef6da000000.pdf.
