This sample Environmental Justice and Health Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. Like other free research paper examples it is not a custom research paper. If you need help with writing your assignment, please use research paper writing services and buy a research paper on any topic.
- What Is Environmental Justice and How Does It Relate to Health?
- Origins of Environmental Justice
- Defining Environmental Justice
- Environmental Justice and Health Inequality
- Broadening the Concept
- Environmental Justice and Health
- Negative Environmental Impacts
- Access to Environmental Resources
- Intergenerational Environmental Justice
- Substantive and Procedural Environmental Justice
- Environmental Justice – Some Current Examples
- Local Injustice
- International and Intergenerational Environmental Justice
- Procedural Environmental Justice
- Emerging Policy Approaches
- The Aarhus Convention – The European Approach
- Linking Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development
What Is Environmental Justice and How Does It Relate to Health?
It is now commonly understood that much of the worldwide burden of environmental ill health falls disproportionately on poorer peoples (UN Environment Programme, 2002; UNICEF, 2005). There is also substantial evidence that much global environmental damage is the result of the actions of richer nations or richer groups within nations – with impacts on poorer nations and poorer groups within nations (World Resources Institute, 2002). Environmental justice is a concept that links environmental health to human rights’ debates around access to a healthy environment. It deals with the distribution of environmental goods and harms – and those involved in environmental justice analyze who is responsible for creating these harms as well as who bears these harms, in both a practical sense but also in terms of policy decisions. It is a radical, environmental health movement that has evolved from civil society groups, angered at what they perceive as the unjust distribution of environmental resources for health and therefore the ‘unjust’ distribution of environmental harms. The movement now includes a collaboration of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with environmental scientists, public health professionals, and lawyers, all working on the issue of the distribution of environmental harms and the rights of everyone to a healthy environment.
Origins of Environmental Justice
Environmental justice originated from protests in the 1980s by community groups in the United States against the repeated siting of polluting factories and waste sites in predominantly black neighborhoods and indigenous peoples’ reservations. Civil rights protestors highlighted the disproportionate burden of negative environmental impacts these sites caused for the most vulnerable sectors of society.
In 1994 the issue reached the White House when President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This order reinforced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by requiring federal regulatory agencies to incorporate environmental justice into all of their activities (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2003).
During the 1990s the environmental justice movement developed in the UK and Europe. There, the focus became less centered around racial minorities and more specifically linked to social inequality; specifically, the disparities between environmental conditions experienced by the richest and poorest sectors of society.
In Latin America, Africa, and Asia, individuals, community groups, NGOs, and academics are also actively involved in tackling environmental health problems that would be described in Europe or the United States as environmental justice issues.
Defining Environmental Justice
Environmental justice is generally defined as a set of rights – that should be aspired to, sought after, or demanded, in terms of both substantive conditions for environmental health and of procedural rights – which principally include access to information and decision making. The following two definitions provide examples. The Office of Environmental Justice of the USEPA defines environmental justice as
the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or a socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. Meaningful involvement means that: (1) potentially affected community residents have an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public’s contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s decision; (3) the concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. (USEPA Office of Environmental Justice, 1998: 9)
The Scottish Executive defines environmental justice in similar terms:
The first is that deprived communities, which may be more vulnerable to the pressures of poor environmental conditions, should not bear a disproportionate burden of negative environmental impacts. The second is that all communities should have access to the information and to the means to participate in decisions which affect the quality of their local environment. (Scottish Executive Social Research, 2005: 8)
Friends of the Earth Scotland, the United Kingdom NGO that led the way on environmental justice in the UK, summarized it simply as ‘‘[n]o less than a decent environment for all: no more than a fair share of the Earth’s resources’’ (Friends of the Earth Scotland, 2003: 17), which highlighted the need for justice both locally and globally.
Environmental justice has also been conceived in terms of rights and responsibilities. For example, Stephens and colleagues identify two key assertions of environmental justice: ‘‘everyone should have the right and be able to live in a healthy environment, with access to enough environmental resources for a healthy life’’ and
responsibilities are on this current generation to ensure a healthy environment exists for future generations, and on countries, organisations and individuals in this generation to ensure that development does not create environmental problems or distribute environmental resources in ways which damage other people’s health. (Stephens et al., 2001: 3)
Environmental Justice and Health Inequality
Environmental inequality is a key part of environmental justice. In effect it is a step back or precondition for injustice to occur. Inequality is a descriptive term; conceptually, to observe or claim an environmental inequality is to point out that an aspect of the environment is distributed unevenly among differentiated social groups (e.g., class, age, ethnicity, etc.). There can be different degrees of inequality depending on how skewed the environmental parameter is toward or away from the social groups of concern. In addition, this can encompass
- Negative aspects of the environment such as exposure to pollution
- Positive aspects such as access to green space
- Procedural aspects such as access to information or decision-making processes.
However, the crucial point is that an inequality is different from an injustice or inequity. It does not necessarily follow that because a distribution of an environmental good or bad is unequal it is also unjust or inequitable. An evaluation or judgment has to be made to progress from inequality to injustice and, as theories of justice make clear, substantially different perspectives can be taken.
Factors that may be relevant in considering the case for an environmental injustice include:
- The degree of inequality that exists
- The degree to which individuals have been able to exercise choice in their exposure to an environmental good or bad
- Whether an inequality has been created through the exercising of power by a public or private body (e.g., in taking facility siting decisions)
- Whether a pattern of inequality is combined with other patterns of inequality (an accumulation of unequal impacts) or with a higher degree of vulnerability or need among a social group, when compared to others
- The degree to which those exposed to an impact or risk also have a role (direct or indirect) in, or benefit from, its creation.
Broadening the Concept
Since its development in the United States, the conceptual boundaries of environmental justice have extended beyond local level issues. A number of different elements or interrelated component parts of environmental justice can be identified from the range of definitions that exist:
- Distributive justice is concerned with how environmental ‘goods’ (e.g., access to green space) and environmental ‘bads’ (e.g., pollution and risk) are distributed among different groups and the fairness or equity of this distribution.
- Procedural justice is involved with the fairness or equity of access to environmental decision-making processes and to rights and recourse in environmental law.
- Policy justice is concerned with the principles and outcomes of environmental policy decisions and how these have impacts on different social groups.
- Intranational justice is involved with how these distributions and processes are experienced and operate within a country.
- International justice extends the breadth of concerns to include international and global issues such as climate change.
- Intergenerational justice encompasses issues of fairness and responsibility between generations, such as emerge in debates over the protection of biodiversity.
While some people may recognize all of these component parts within their working definition or framing of environmental justice, others take a more restricted or focused view. There are also differences in the extent to which environmental justice is seen as only encompassing core environmental issues or extending – within a broader sustainability perspective – to include quality of life and social issues that have environmental dimensions to them.
Environmental Justice and Health
Health is a key component of environmental justice, and is a key reason why the environmental justice movement developed. This section outlines some of the evidence of how environmental justice and health are linked.
Negative Environmental Impacts
Negative environmental impacts are not randomly distributed. Generally, poorer people live in worse environments. Environmental epidemiology provides evidence of direct causal relationships between exposure to environmental pollutants and negative health outcomes. Industrial or domestic processes on a local or international scale may produce pollutants, with health outcomes ranging from mild skin irritation to death. This exposure–outcome relationship is affected by many socioeconomic factors that are treated as possible confounding factors in epidemiological analysis. Within a population group some individuals or groups are more likely to be exposed than others, due to the location and conditions in which they live and work.
There will be varying levels of awareness about the possible negative effects of exposure, and varying capacity to prevent it. People with existing illness or previous exposure may be more vulnerable. Some people will have good access to diagnosis and treatment facilities, others will have none. These inequalities, a complication for environmental exposure–health outcome analysis, contribute to unequal distribution of risk. An environmental justice perspective also considers who is responsible for creating environmental hazards, who benefits from the process that creates them, and who is most at risk.
Even in wealthy regions such as Europe, routine environmental exposures affecting child health, such as transport-related pollution and housing, occur without citizens being able to access environmental policy for justice. Further, despite advanced worker protection fought for over the last hundred years, conditions are deteriorating for low-income workers and increasing numbers are excluded from the workforce. In addition, internationally, past environmental crises such as Chernobyl and Bhopal, have all occurred despite well-developed constitutional, environmental, and human rights legislative frameworks at national and international levels, dating back in some cases to the middle of the twentieth century.
Access to Environmental Resources
Another key aspect of environmental justice is the right of all people to environmental resources for healthy living. People need access to a range of environmental and social resources to be healthy, and to meet the following needs:
- Physical: shelter, heat, food, clean air, and water
- Economic: transport infrastructure, work, shops
- Aesthetic, mental, and spiritual: green space, quiet, access to countryside.
Access to these resources is highly skewed, both internationally and within countries. Poorer groups are less likely to have reliable access to safe drinking water, healthy sources of food, and transport infrastructure necessary for education and employment – even within wealthy nations and regions. In addition, richer countries access important environmental resources of poorer nations while peoples in those nations do not benefit and are sometimes harmed. For example, the UK consumes large quantities of raw environmental resources – metals, wood, oil, and minerals – which are mostly imported. Oil is an important example: communities in oil-producing countries are increasingly complaining about environmental damage caused by resource exploitation, and there is considerable concern about the distribution of development benefits associated with this resource.
Another aspect of this debate is the global inequality in consumption of the world’s resources. For example, a report for the World Economic Forum highlighted that the UK’s ‘ecological footprint’ – the total amount of land a country is appropriating to support its economy – is equivalent to an area over 10 times the size of the UK, the eighth worst out of 122 countries surveyed. The UK has a net deficit of 4.5 hectares per person (World Economic Forum, 2001).
Intergenerational Environmental Justice
Even if everyone today lived in a healthy environment, environmental justice would not be done if this were achieved at the expense of people in future generations. Stephens et al. (2001) identified four types of actions contributing to injustices across generations, including:
- Activities that impose costs on future generations without any balancing of benefits: nuclear waste will have to be managed for thousands of years; toxic waste that impacts on health of future generations
- Reducing the ability of the environment to provide nonsubstitutable resources and services (what environmental economists call ‘critical natural capital’)
- Creating ongoing negative environmental impacts: for example, climate change is predicted to become more severe in its disruptive effects over the coming centuries
- Using technologies with unknown and unexplored potential long-term effects: for example, there is limited scientific understanding of the long-term health and environmental impacts of the vast range of chemicals we use daily.
There is a significant tension within environmental justice – how do we reconcile these different aspects of environmental justice? There is no easy answer and the second thread of environmental justice theory – dealing with procedural justice – does not make the case any less complex.
Substantive and Procedural Environmental Justice
Substantive injustices are caused, in part, by procedural injustices. Access to information can be a major barrier for individuals or communities tackling environmental justice issues. People seek information from scientists, industry professionals, regulators, legal advisors – all of which may be complicated or expensive to acquire and difficult for nonexperts to interpret. For example, waste disposal policies are not designed to hurt poorer communities, but can through the decision-making process if wealthier groups can access decisions more easily and avoid perceived harm. This aspect of environmental justice is known as procedural justice.
The debate within the UK on the location of waste incineration plants provides a good example: Lord Judd questioned Richard Mills of the UK National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection:
When you say that it (incineration) is acceptable, it is acceptable to the more articulate sections of the population. From what you have said, the incinerator ends up in the less articulate sections of society. I do think we ought to make that quite clear. (Ryder, 1999: 373)
Poorer communities and ethnic communities face worse social, economic, and environmental conditions, but this can be linked to their inability to access decision-making processes. There are gender differences in environmental exposures and impacts: for example, poor housing conditions affect women – particularly single mothers and their children. Children overall, as well as elderly people, are often more greatly affected by environmental policies than adults of working age. Within the working population, there are great differences in environmental exposures, with lower-income workers employed in occupations with higher exposure to hazards, lower incomes, and greater insecurity of employment.
A substantial and fast-developing part of work that defines itself as part of the environmental justice movement is about ensuring access to legal systems. There are a growing number of national NGOs for whom environmental law is their main focus, as well as international networks such as Justice and Environment and Earthjustice.
Environmental Justice – Some Current Examples
At a local level – the original focus of the environmental justice movement – examples of environmental injustice are most frequently linked to industry and decisions made by local and national government. Siting and regulation of manufacturing industries, waste disposal sites, energy extraction, and production facilities can cause or contribute to environmental injustice with negative effects on local people’s health. These situations can arise quickly or over decades.
The following list shows cases of such local environmental justice. It is notable that each is linked to a wider justice issue related to consumption of the products of each of the industrial processes. The people who experience the local harms are not the people who benefit from the resources produced.
- Traffic, poverty, and air pollution, Great Britain: Mitchell and Dorling (2003) analyzed air pollution, vehicle emissions, and poverty in Britain, finding that ‘‘communities that have access to fewest cars tend to suffer from the highest levels of air pollution, whereas those in which car ownership is greatest enjoy the cleanest air’’ (Mitchell and Dorling, 2003: 913). Areas with 30–40% of households in poverty had access to fewer cars and experienced the highest levels of air pollution. The authors concluded that this was ‘‘evidence of environmental injustice in the distribution and production of poor air quality in the UK’’ (Mitchell and Dorling, 2003: 929).
- Soft drink bottling factories, India: Local people have experienced water shortages as water is diverted from rivers through pipelines to soft drink bottling factories in rural India. The majority of people affected are India’s most marginalized groups, low-income rural laborers, whose livelihoods depend on agriculture. Access to clean water is crucial for individual health and also essential for agriculture. Local campaigners point out that, ironically, communities most impacted by the factories’ operations cannot afford to buy the soft drinks they produce.
- La Oroya metal smelter, Peru: A metal smelter complex has operated in La Oroya, Peru, for over 80 years. Lead processing on the site begun in 1929 and emissions are not controlled. Recent blood sampling surveys of local children show that they are being exposed to lead in their local environment. The health effects of lead exposure in childhood range from behavior and developmental impairment to death. Health concerns also exist about poor nutrition, sanitation, and lack of safe drinking water (Doe Run Company, 2004; Buchanan et al., 2005).
International and Intergenerational Environmental Justice
Perhaps the biggest environmental justice issue to emerge in the early twenty-first century is linked to our global development process and the sharp injustices of unequal consumption patterns and unequal impacts of the environmental burden of such patterns on both poorer peoples in poorer nations and on future generations. Climate change impacts have emerged as a key environmental justice issue for almost every international and national policy body. As Professor Peter Cox, a senior observer in the UK commented in 2007:
We’ve got this problem that the most impacted people are in the developing world who are (a) less able to adapt and (b) not responsible for the problem. We are so connected now, across the globe, that we will be affected by environmental change wherever it occurs. (Climate Change, 2007)
And, as Mary Robinson stated in a Barbara Ward Lecture entitled Climate Change and Justice:
We now recognise that respect for human rights is at the core of sustainable development, and the links today between human development, human rights and human security could not be clearer. Equally important, human rights are our shared international language and framework, and human rights instruments give our multi-lateral system its means of putting into practice our shared values. Can there be any problem today that requires this approach more than climate change? Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of human rights states our birthright: ‘‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’’. However it is here that an issue of justice is raised, as I will explain further: it is poor communities who are suffering most from the effects of climate change, and it is rich countries that are contributing most to the problem. The human rights approach, emphasising the equality of all people, is a direct challenge to the power imbalance that allows the perpetrators of climate change to continue unchecked. And the human rights framework gives us the legal and normative grounds for empowering the poor to seek redress. (Robinson, 2006: 2)
Figure 1 shows graphically how our world looks when the proportional size of pollution impacts are scaled to a map of the world. As well, a recent report for the International Panel on Climate Change noted that
On aggregate, it was estimated that climate change may already (by 2000) be causing in the region of 150 000 deaths (0.3% of global deaths per year) and 5.5 million lost DALYs [disability adjusted life years]/year (0.4% of global DALYs lost per year). Even taking into account increasing wealth and some level of behavioural and socioeconomic adaptation, the disease burden caused by climate change is likely to increase substantially over time. Overall, the effects are predicted to be heavily concentrated in poorer populations at low latitudes, where the most important climate-sensitive health outcomes (malnutrition, diarrhoea, and malaria) are already common, and where vulnerability to climate effects is greatest. These diseases mainly affect younger age groups, so that the total burden of disease due to climate change appears to be borne mainly by children in developing countries. (Haines et al., 2006: 2106–2107)
Figure 1. Territory size shows the proportion of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide emitted in 2002.
Procedural Environmental Justice
A survey of access to information, participation, and justice in environmental decision making was carried out in nine countries – Chile, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and the United States – in 2001–02 (Petkova et al., 2002). Researchers found that
- Access to justice is hampered by unclear laws
- Access to justice is constrained by limited mechanism for redress
- High costs are an effective barrier to access to justice.
Even in countries where democracy is argued to have existed for centuries, many of the most disadvantaged groups feel a sense of alienation from their rights to information or decision making. For example, local campaigner Joan Higginson describes her communities’ experiences in Scotland:
There is very little redress as the system and structures that are in place do very little to support them. For instance there is an imbalance within the planning system that significantly favours the developer above the community. The developer has the right of appeal whilst the local community does not. Therefore the aggrieved party has no way to address the issue unless they can afford the exorbitant and unpredictable fees for a judicial review. (Friends of the Earth Scotland, 2003: 22)
Emerging Policy Approaches
The United States was the first country to recognize and use ‘environmental justice’ as a term in national legislation. There are many other approaches to environmental justice at a national policy level, but few use the phrase directly. A sizeable number of nations (such as newer, post-Soviet ones) include a right to a safe and healthy environment within their constitutions. And it is these nations that have tended to support the principles of the most promising piece of environmental justice policy to emerge within the last few years.
The Aarhus Convention – The European Approach
The Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters is the first international agreement that takes forward some but not all aspects of work on environmental justice. Figure 2 shows the substantive and procedural aspects of the agreement. As its title suggests, the Aarhus Convention contains three broad themes or ‘pillars’: access to information, public participation, and access to justice. It applies to all countries within the European Union.
Figure 2. The Aarhus Convention
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) describes the convention in the following terms:
The Convention adopts a rights-based approach. Article 1, setting out the objective of the Convention, requires Parties to guarantee rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. It also refers to the goal of protecting the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to health and well-being, which represents a significant step forward in international law. These rights underlie the various procedural requirements in the Convention. (UNECE, 2008)
The convention entered into force on 30 October 2001 and was hailed as a milestone of environmental democracy.
A secretariat body based at the UNECE office in Geneva is responsible for the implementation of the Aarhus Convention. The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee is now able to receive submissions from NGOs and the public who have challenged decision making and nonavailability of information in their own nations (i.e., those nations that have ratified the Aarhus Convention) and been unsuccessful (UNECE, 2007b). These are then considered and where appropriate discussed at the annual meeting of nations which are parties to the Convention.
Some of the first appeals came through the NGO Green Salvation, in Almaty, Kazakhstan. The first appeal concerned the failure of the national atomic energy company, Kazatomprom, to disclose information regarding its project for the importation and burial of low-level radioactive waste from foreign countries on the territory of Kazakhstan. The second appeal concerned the illegal construction of a high-voltage (110 kV) power line through the residential district of Gornyi Gigant within Almaty.
These and other cases provided the first tests of the Aarhus Convention’s compliance mechanism, which found in 2005 that three countries – Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan – had failed to comply with certain provisions of the Aarhus Convention. Moves toward compliance are continuing and the Aarhus Clearinghouse set up by UNECE monitors activity and promotes good practice.
The Aarhus Convention is a new type of legislation – built on principles of environmental democracy. This makes it an interesting policy, but also a highly controversial one. UNECE describes the Aarhus Convention in aspirational terms:
The Aarhus Convention is a new kind of environmental agreement. It links environmental rights and human rights. It acknowledges that we owe an obligation to future generations. It establishes that sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders. It links government accountability and environmental protection. It focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities in a democratic context and it is forging a new process for public participation in the negotiation and implementation of international agreements. (UNECE, 2008b).
Only time will tell if this agreement proves to be a useful approach for international environmental justice strategies.
Linking Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development
There is a growing concern to create stronger links between the environmental justice movement and the global sustainable development community. The 2002 UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg saw calls from NGOs for a global right to a safe and healthy environment to be a central part of work on sustainable development, but this failed to get agreement from governments.
One government that has directly included environmental justice in its National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD) is the UK. Every country that signed the 1992 UN Rio Declaration has committed to develop such a strategy and most have done so with varying degrees of commitment. The NSSD includes the approach of creating sustainable communities as one element of its program, and this includes some limited commitments on tackling environmental inequalities:
The Government will fund further research on the causes of environmental inequality and the effectiveness of measures to tackle it in order to establish the best ways to tackle these issues in communities . . . the Government will in the short term focus on improving the environment in the areas already identified as most deprived.(DEFRA, 2005: 134–135)
These are promising moves but we are yet to see environmental justice as an explicit policy goal within sustainable development strategies at the international level. The most promising work continues to take place at the local level. For example, a 2004 report, Environmental Justice in London (Adebowale et al., 2004) concerns issues for London. One key recommendation is for a regional environmental justice ‘code,’ which would act as guidance for policy makers and practitioners in all sectors, and would provide a framework for the development of an environmental justice ‘impact assessment.’ The aim would be to ensure that no one group suffers disproportionate impacts of policies, acts, or omissions. This proposal has had some support from the Mayor of London and some parties within the Greater London Assembly, but as yet there is no evidence of such a code being developed.
Environmental justice is still low on many policy agendas. This may be due to a lack of capacity among those worst affected to engage in policy issues. Building capacity to engage is likely to be central to any long-term change in this area, and this is likely to help develop increasing links between those working on environmental issues and those engaged with social justice.
Environmental justice may also become an increasingly important issue as the impacts of global climate change are felt. Many ‘climate refugees’ likely are coming from poorer nations such as Bangladesh, which have low carbon emissions themselves yet suffer disproportionately from the policies and practice of richer nations. Even within such poorer nations there are likely to be environmental injustices as poorer communities are often on more marginal land and may be more vulnerable to flooding and droughts.
At the same time, there is an emerging toolkit for governments, individuals, and communities to use to implement environmental justice. New assessment techniques, policies, and laws now allow the more transparent establishment of rights and responsibilities, and this in turn brings new legal, reputational, and financial risks for those acting in an irresponsible way.
Environmental justice is not a panacea for all social injustices or all health inequalities. But overall, it offers a fresh perspective. Environmental justice’s two basic premises are, first, that everyone should have the right and be able to live in a healthy environment, with access to enough environmental resources for a healthy life, and, second, that it is predominantly the poorest and least powerful people who are missing out on these healthful conditions. Taking these two premises together suggests that a priority is to ensure that the adverse conditions faced by the least powerful people are tackled first. As well as implying environmental rights, it implies environmental responsibilities. Our generation – we who are living in the early 21st Century, must accept our responsibility for the damages we as a species are inflicting on the planet, on each other and on future generations. The future development of the world must not be at the expense of the planet’s environmental sustainability, or the well-being of future generations. This is a view that reframes environmental issues as a critical and core element of achieving social justice goals, rather than as a set of priorities that conflict with social goals. If social justice can be thought of as ensuring that all people have at least a basic set of minimum conditions to achieve a healthy life, then having a healthy, safe environment and access to enough environmental resources for all people is a central part of this social justice goal.
We are yet to grasp fully the impacts of our current development trajectory on either our local environment, or our global one. Environmental justice asks us to think about rights and responsibilities toward our environment and our health. It challenges us to think about others and about future generations. It is not a simple environmental health policy – it is a complex approach for our complex, twenty-first-century environmental health challenges. Environmental justice offers a new frame for public health professionals interested in the traditional public field of social equity, but also is a new lens on public health within the context of global environmental change.
- Adebowale M, Church C, and Shepherd P (2004) Environmental justice in London: Linking the equalities and environment policy agendas. London: London Sustainability Exchange. http://www.lsx.org.uk/docs/page/2604/Environmental%20Justice%20in%20London%20-%20Linking%20the%20Equalities%20and%20Environment%20Policy%20Agendas.pdf
- Buchanan S, Meyer P, Tarrago O, et al. (2005) Development of an integrated intervention plan to reduce exposure to lead and other contaminants in the mining center of La Oroya, Peru. Health Studies Report, Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Climate Change: Britain Under Threat. Television documentary, first aired January 21, 2007. Directed by Milla Harrison and Peter Oxley, produced by Paul Bradshaw. BBC One/Open University.
- Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2005) Securing the future: The UK government sustainable development strategy. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1408uk.pdf
- The Doe Run Company (2004) La Oroya, Peru. http://www.doerun.com/what-we-do/laoroya
- Friends of the Earth Scotland (ed.) (2003) Voices from the Grassroots. Redressing the Balance: Working Towards Environmental Justice in Scotland. Edinburgh: Friends of the Earth Scotland.
- Haines A, Kovats RS, Campbell-Lendrum D, et al. (2006) Climate change and human health: Impacts, vulnerability, and mitigation. The Lancet 367(9528): 2101–2109.
- Mitchell G and Dorling D (2003) An environmental justice analysis of British air quality. Environment and Planning A 35: 909–929.
- Nakagawa L (2006) Toxic Trade: The Real Cost of Electronics Waste Exports from the United States. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
- Petkova E, Maurer C, Henninger N, et al. (2002) Closing the gap: Information, participation and justice in decision-making for the environment. B. Livernash, World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org/publication/closing-gap
- Robinson M (2006) Climate change and justice. Barbara Ward Lecture, Chatham House, London, 11 December 2006. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. http://www.iied.org/2006-barbara-ward-lecture-mary-robinson-makes-climate-change-justice-issue
- Ryder R (1999) No-one ever died from dioxin. The dioxin problem in Britain. Ecologist 29(6): 369–374.
- Scottish Executive Social Research (2005) Public attitudes and environmental justice in Scotland: A report for the Scottish Executive on research to inform the development and evaluation of environmental justice policy. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/77843/0018790.pdf
- Stephens C, Bullock S, Scott, et al. (2001) Environmental justice: Rights and means to a healthy environment for all. Special Briefing Paper. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Global Environmental Change Programme. Brighton, UK: ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme, University of Sussex. https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/environmental_justice.pdf
- United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2005) The State of the World’s Children 2005. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (1999) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. Geneva, Switzerland: UNECE.
- United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2007) Aarhus Convention: Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. http://www.unece.org/env/pp/mop2/mop2.docII.htm#/
- United Nations Environment Programme (2002) Global Environmental Outlook 2003. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
- S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1998) Final guidance for incorporating environmental justice concerns in EPA’s NEPA compliance analyses. April 1998.Washington, DC: USEPA. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/ej-guidance-nepa-compliance-analyses.pdf
- S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Environmental Justice (1998) Environmental Justice Toolkit.
- S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2003) Environmental justice. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice
- World Economic Forum (2001) Global Leaders of Tomorrow Environment Task Force 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.