Perceptions of Environmental Injustice among Black Americans

By

Christie L. Parris, Oberlin College

Karen A. Hegtvedt, Emory University

Abstract

In the United States, there is a great deal of environmental injustice, the inequity in how environmental burdens are distributed across various populations. Previous research indicates that communities of color and poor communities are more likely to be exposed to environmental burdens, while white and middle- and upper-class neighborhoods are more likely to experience environmental benefits. Although there is substantial research on general justice evaluations, there is a lack of information regarding how specific individual-level racial and environmental factors, including racial identity, experiences with discrimination, and environmental identity, influence evaluations of environmental injustices. This study explores these evaluations within the context of the Black community. We draw on survey data collected from Black students at two elite universities (one predominantly white, one predominantly Black). We use seemingly unrelated regression to analyze the data, with emerging patterns suggesting that Black racial identity, environmental identity, and political liberalism all effect environmental justice evaluations.

1

Perceptions of Environmental Injustice among Black Americans

The groundbreaking publication Toxic Waste and Race uncovered unequal distributions

of environmental harms, demonstrating disproportionate exposure among people of color (POC)

(United Church of Christ 1987). Since then, there has been increased academic focus on how

environmental burdens and benefits are distributed across communities (Bullard 1994, 2000;

Park and Pellow 2011; Pellow and Brulle 2005), resulting in overwhelming evidence of

environmental injustices. Moreover, an evaluation of new data for the twentieth anniversary of

the UCC study showed even higher concentrations of environmental harms around POC

neighborhoods than in 1987 (Bullard et al. 2007). Consequently, many POC experience

environmental issues differently than whites. POC tend to care more about environmental

injustices, while whites are more aligned with mainstream environmentalism’s focus on wildlife

and conservation (Taylor 2000).1

Although environmental harms disproportionately plague POC neighborhoods, and

qualitative studies have captured the influence of these environmental and social issues on

impacted locals (e.g., Čapek 1993), quantitatively, we know little beyond the relationship

between a single categorical racial variable and environmental attitudes and behaviors. Such a

one-dimensional racial measure cannot capture the complexities of racial identity (Harper 2011).

Thus, we are missing insights into how the meanings people attach to being a POC – their

multifaceted racial identity and experiences with discrimination – influence their perceptions of

injustices that harm many POC. Plus, there is a paucity of quantitative research that addresses

1 The overwhelming consensus among researchers is that the placement of environmental harms is more prevalent than the disproportionate movement of minorities into these neighborhoods (Pastor et al. 2001). These findings negate the popularly held view that minorities move into neighborhoods with pre-existing environmental harms because the low property values render it more affordable.

2

perceptions of justice specifically regarding environmental issues. Our research addresses both of

these matters by considering how Blacks in the United States perceive aspects of environmental

justice.

Environmental justice is the fair distribution of environmental burdens and benefits

across demographic groups (Opotow and Clayton 1994). We examine two facets of

environmental justice. First, procedural environmental justice pertains to the processes of

decision making regarding how to distribute environmental burdens and benefits across

communities. Second, distributive environmental justice refers to fairness in the actual

distribution of environmental burdens and benefits. Additionally, given mainstream

environmentalism’s focus on issues of conservation and wildlife preservation, we include the

notion of ecological justice, or the allowance of non-human species the right to exist unimpeded

in their natural habitats (Baxter 2005).

We examine how individual-level racial factors (racial identity and experiences with

discrimination), environmental identity (EID), and political ideology influence perceptions of

procedural, distributive, and ecological justice within the context of the Black community. We

anchor our argument in social psychological theorizing about justice evaluations (see Hegtvedt

2006; Jost and Kay 2010). Individuals’ perceptions of justice stem from comparisons between

their expectations about what constitutes fair outcomes or procedures and actual outcomes or

procedures. Shaped by a combination of individual-level and contextual-levels factors, perceived

injustice arises when reality fails to align with expectations.

In what follows, we first provide a theoretical background and hypotheses regarding

individual-level racial and environmental factors and their potential influence on perceptions of

environmental and ecological (in)justices. Then we discuss our methodological approach.

3

Finally, we include our results, followed by a discussion of the results and suggestions for future

research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Investigations into justice issues have long been an integral part of sociological research.

This research often focuses on beliefs regarding what constitutes justice and perceptions of

injustice (Hegvedt 2006). According to Hegtvedt (2006), individuals’ justice evaluations stem

from comparisons between their expectations about what constitutes fair outcomes and actual

outcomes. Perceive instances of injustice occur when reality does not align with expectations. A

combination of individual-level factors and contextual-levels factors affect these justice

evaluations.

Identities capture a key individual-level factor affecting justice evaluations. An identity

represents the meanings people attach to the roles they play in society (Stryker and Burke 2000),

which provides a framework for managing thoughts, feelings, and perceptions (Burke and Stets

2009). Individuals verify identities through behaviors, seeking consistency between how they

perceive themselves and how they think others perceive them (Burke 1991). In order to reconcile

any differences in these perceptions, individuals tend to engage in various sense-making

techniques, including aligning their motivations, beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors. This desire

for consistency, known as self-verification, can affect how an individual perceives a situation,

especially with regard to various justice frameworks, including the distribution of environmental

harms (Burke 1991; Fiske and Taylor 2008; Stets and Biga 2003; Parris et al. 2014).

According to Stets and Biga (2003), an individual’s identities roles are arranged in a

hierarchy that individuals must navigate as they go through the process of self-verification.

Individuals adjust conflicting identities simultaneously, based on the salience of the competing

4

identity roles within a specific context and the commitment an individual has to that identity

(Stets 2003). Depending on the type of justice framework at hand, certain identities may emerge

as more salient than others. Here, we extend research on how perceivers’ identities impacts

justice evaluations by examining particular individual-level racial factors—racial identity and

previous experiences with discrimination—and a particular fairness issue: justice regarding

environmental issues. Since racial minorities disproportionately bear the brunt of environmental

harms (Bullard et al. 2007; Taylor 2000), racial identity and previous experiences with

discrimination will theoretically be salient with environmental justice evaluations. Additionally,

we consider measures of environmental identity and political liberalism, as scholars have

demonstrated repeatedly the importance of these factors in environmental concerns research

(Clayton 2003; Dunlap and McCright 2011). While people may evaluate the fairness of many

types of positive and negative outcomes both for themselves as well as for others, we focus on

assessments of environmental burdens.

The social constructionist perspective, or “how people assign meanings to their social

world,” characterizes the environmental justice movement (Taylor 2000: 509). According to this

perspective, environmental issues can be seen as social problems defined by shared meanings.

As a result, the salience of individuals’ identities, as well as their location within the social

hierarchy, can influence how they perceive different social justice issues, such as substandard

housing or unequal access to education. Because of their relatively lower location in the social

hierarchy, racial minorities tend to be aware of social justice issues, including environmental

justice (Čapek 1993; Taylor 2000).

5

Racial Factors

Previously, researchers have demonstrated the effect of race on various environmental

concerns. Johnson, Bowker, and Cordell (2004) showed that Blacks scored lower than Whites on

the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP), which measures environmentally responsibly beliefs and

environmental behaviors (e.g., environmental reading, household recycling, environmental group

joining, and participation in nature-based outdoor recreation). In contrast, Mohai and Bryant

(1998) reported that Blacks and Whites have equal levels of concern for the environment, but

that they vary in types of concern that they express. For instance, their data show that Blacks are

more likely to be concerned about “neighborhood environmental problems,” such as exposure to

lead, than their White counterparts. This focus on local environmental problems could be linked

with issues of environmental injustices.

Despite these different types of concern, research suggests that there are no significant

differences between Blacks and Whites on environmental justice evaluations (Mohai and Bryant

1998; Parris et al. 2014). Typically, though, studies investigating the effects of race on

environmental concerns employ self-identification with a particular category, a one-dimensional

measurement of race. Harper (2011), however, argues that such measures hardly capture racial

identity, which requires a multi-dimensional assessment. A single question on a survey cannot

fully represent the complexity of an individual’s racial identity; racial identity is a complex and

multi-faceted process.

For this study, we use Phinney’s definition of racial identity: “an individual’s self-

concept that derives from his or her knowledge of membership in a social group…together with

the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (1992:152). Other researchers

approach the measurement of racial identity by examining the salience of cultural traditions or

6

in-group social activities, often specific to certain races. Phinney’s definition, however, is

relevant across racial groups.

Racial identity revolves around two questions: “Who am I racially?” and “What does that

mean?” That aspect of meaning can fluctuate within an individual, based on their experiences.

For this study, however, we investigate the role of an individual’s racial identity at a given point,

rather than researching the development of that identity. This allows us to focus more on the

relationship between identity and environmental justice evaluations, rather than concentrating on

what might cause changes in an individual’s racial identity.

Although we use a definition of racial identity that can apply to multiple groups, there are

some aspects of Black identity that are unique. This distinctness stems mainly from the history of

Black-White race relations in the United States, including slavery, segregation, and several de

facto policies that isolated the Black community. As a result of this oppression and its

consequences, racial identity has historically been very important to the Black community.

Although the Black experience is far from homogeneous, there are certain characteristics that can

be used to define a Black identity (Sellers et al. 1998).

Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, and Chavous (1998) break Black identity down into four

quantifiable components: salience, centrality, public and private regard, and racial ideology. The

first two components focus on how an individual defines himself or herself in terms of race, and

the latter two refer to an individual’s perception of what it means to be Black. For the purpose of

this paper, we turn our attention towards salience and centrality, investigating the importance of

race as part of an individual’s self-concept. Black identity salience measures the degree of

relevance that an individual’s race holds within a specific situation. In contrast, Black identity

centrality measures an individual’s tendency to define him or herself in terms of being Black.

7

While salience is sensitive to context, centrality is a generally stable dimension of Black identity

(Sellers et al. 1998).

Several studies of racial identity and injustice indicate that individuals with a more salient

or central racial identity are more likely to perceive future instances of racial injustice (Operario

and Fiske 2001; Sellers and Shelton 2003; Shelton and Sellers 2000). For instance, in a study of

athletes, Black basketball players with a less salient racial identity perceived very little racial

discrimination (Brown et al. 2003). Because Black identity is so strongly linked to the history of

Black oppression in the United States (Sellers et al. 1998), the association between racial identity

and perceptions of future injustices could be especially strong in Black individuals.

Here, we extend those results to environmental justice. The distribution of environmental

harms has been so heavily placed on minority communities that researchers have developed

another term for environmental injustices: environmental racism (Bullard et al. 2007, Taylor

2000). As a result, we argue that sensitivity to environmental justice may be heightened for those

whose strong racial identity creates greater empathy for those who are affected by the unequal

distribution of environmental harms. Thus, we propose:

Hypothesis 1: Black racial identity is positively related to environmental and ecological

(in)justice evaluations.

While racial identity may sensitize individuals to instances of racism, the actual

experience of discrimination may independently affect environmental justice evaluations as well.

Several studies indicate how discrimination experiences in general influence what people learn

and evaluate.

Cropanzano et al. (2005) discuss the interaction between different types of justice

evaluations. When interactional justice – the focus on the evaluation of interpersonal treatment –

8

is notably low, individuals tend to have a greater perception of distributive justice issues, which

relate to the normative allocation of benefits or burdens to all individuals (Hegtvedt 2006). Since

environmental justice focuses on the distribution of the fair allocation of environmental benefits

and burdens across social groups, it can be classified as a type of distributive justice (Hegtvedt

2006; Opotow and Clayton 1994). In contrast, experiences with discrimination can be considered

a type of interactional injustice (Hegtvedt 2006). If Cropanzano et al.’s model holds true, then

more frequent experiences with discrimination (low levels of interactional justice) would result

in greater perceptions of environmental injustices.

Hughes and colleagues (Hughes 2003; Hughes et al. 2006) suggest that parental

experience with discrimination enhances the extent to which Black parents socialize their

children with an awareness of discrimination, including providing them with coping techniques.

Such socialization could play a role in a greater perception of racial prejudice later in life by

making children more prone to be aware of and expect discrimination.

Parental experiences with discrimination, especially in the work place, have also been

correlated with a “promotion of mistrust,” or a “need for wariness and distrust in interracial

interactions” (Hughes et al. 2006: 757). In contrast with preparing children for bias, “promotion

of mistrust” excludes any direct messages about discrimination. Although promoting mistrust

does not directly relate to perceptions of discrimination, lower levels of trust could theoretically

lead Black children to be more likely to expect unequal treatment from peers of another race,

including decisions by predominantly White authorities with regard to distributing environmental

harms (Hughes et al. 2006).

According to Dulin-Keita et al. (2011), Black children with more frequent experiences of

discrimination have a greater awareness of race at a young age than their White peers. In turn,

9

they find that a greater awareness of race enhances the perceived likelihood of future

discrimination. Interestingly, this effect was not as strong in Hispanic children, although both

groups of children reported comparable levels of experience with discrimination. Sellers and

Shelton (2003) report a more direct association for racial identity and discrimination. According

to their data, individuals with a more central racial identity tended to perceive more experiences

of racial discrimination. Applying these reports to perceptions of environmental injustices as

environmental discrimination, we suspect that experiences with discrimination will lead to an

increased perception and expectation of environmental injustices. Thus, we suggest:

Hypothesis 2: More frequent experiences with everyday discrimination is positively

related to environmental and ecological (in)justice evaluations.

Environmental and Political Factors

In addition to Black identity, we also include environmental identity in our consideration.

Environmental identity refers to an individual’s understanding of the self in relation to the

natural environment (Clayton 2003). According to Stets and Biga (2003), individuals attempt to

maintain internal consistency by modifying their behavior to match specific identities they

possess. Environmental identity, then, exerts a strong influence on environmentally responsible

behaviors, such as recycling, using public transportation, or conserving water (Stets and Biga

2003; Watson et al. 2015; Whitmarsh and O’Neil 2010). Previous research also suggests that

environmental identity is a strong predictor of attitudes towards environmental and ecological

justice (Parris et al. 2014). Accordingly, we expect:

Hypothesis 3: Environmental identity is positively related to environmental and

ecological (in)justice evaluations.

10

In addition to environmental identity, previous research has indicated an overwhelming

correlation between political liberalism and environmental concerns (Dunlap and McCright

2011; Xiao and McCright 2007). This correlation stems from a central tenet of liberal ideology,

that of government intervention/protection (Parris et a. 2014). This governmental regulation is

often necessary when pursuing both environmental protections and the distribution of

environmental burdens across communities. In contrast, tenets of politically conservative

ideology, including laissez-faire government practices, private property rights, and a faith in

material abundance, are often in conflict with the pursuit of environmental protections (Dunlap

and Van Liere 1984). McCright and Dunlap argue that this is because the “pursuit of

environmental protection often involves government action that is seen as threatening core

elements of conservatism, such as the primacy of individual freedom, private property rights,

laissez-faire government, and promotion of free enterprise” (2000:504). Moreover, previous

research has found that Blacks tend to strongly identify with the Democratic Party. In 2008,

ninety-five percent of Blacks voted Democratic in the presidential election and seventy-six

percent of Blacks identified as a member of the Democratic Party (Bositis 2012).2 Finally, with

regard to environmental injustices, politically liberal individuals may be more familiar with the

voices of disadvantaged and minority groups in society (Bartels 2010; Jost, Federico, and Napier

2009). As such, we propose:

Hypothesis 4: Political liberalism is positively related to environmental and ecological

(in)justice evaluations.

2 While political ideology (i.e., liberalism and conservatism) does not map on to political party perfectly, party membership often predicts one’s political ideology. Furthermore, given the youthful age of the college students in our study, we focus on their burgeoning political ideologies a specific party affiliation.

11

METHODS

Our data involve survey responses gathered from Black college students at two

southeastern universities. One of these universities is an all-male, historically Black college

(HBCU) and the other is a predominantly White, co-educational institution (PWI). Our set of

respondents includes only undergraduate students. We sampled students from two different

schools in order to achieve higher levels of variability among participants with regards to our

demographic control variables.

We recruited respondents through a combination of convenience and snowball sampling

in the spring of 2013. During visits to sociology classrooms at the HBCU and Black Student

Alliance meetings at the PWI, we invited students to participate in the study. Interested students

provided their email contact information. Once we collected students’ email addresses, we sent

an initial email that included information regarding the study as well as a web link to the online

survey. Each web link was unique to the respondent to prevent multiple responses from

individual participants. At the end of the survey, participants were invited to provide additional

contact information for other potential respondents, creating a snowball sample. We sent a

follow-up email to potential respondents two weeks after the initial contact.

The survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete. The survey included questions

about racial identity, previous experiences with discrimination, environmental identity, political

liberalism, attitudes and perceptions of environmental justice, and demographic information. To

compensate students for their time, each respondent was given a $10 Amazon gift card.

We approached 397 students and 157 agreed to participate, for a response rate of 39.5

percent. 141 students completed the survey in its entirety. The respondent pool consists of 31.9

percent males and 68.1 percent females. The HBCU is an all-male institution, and the PWI is

12

approximately 55 percent females and 45 percent males. Of the 141 participants, 85.8 percent of

the respondents attended the PWI, while 14.2 percent of the students attend the HBCU.3 As of

fall 2012, the PWI is 9.3 percent Black and 40 percent non-White; the HBCU is 94.4 percent

Black. Additionally, 10.6 percent of the respondent pool also identified as one or more other

ethnicities. Since these respondents included “Black” in one of their ethnicities, we kept them in

our sample.

Measures

Our analysis required multiple indicators to measure the independent and dependent

variables. We relied on several previously-created scales. These scales are each additive and

standardized by the number of items. First, we discuss each scale’s coding scheme and then we

report the scale reliabilities. See Appendix 1 for all scale items, alphas, and Eigenvalues.

Independent variables

Black Identity measures how individuals see themselves as a Black person and how they

relate to other Black individuals. This four-item scale consists of the following items: How much

do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about race… (1) I have a strong

sense of belonging to Black people; (2) Being Black is an important reflection of who I am; (3)

In general, being Black is an important part of my self-image; and (4) I have a strong attachment

to other Black people. Cronbach’s Alpha for this scale is .866.

3 We plan to collect additional data in the spring of 2015 from the HBCU in order to increase our sample

size and achieve a more even division of respondents across the two schools. The analysis of these data

will be completed prior to the ASA meeting in August, 2015.

13

We measured experiences with racial discrimination by using a scale of everyday

discrimination. This scale was developed using items from Williams’ Everyday Discrimination

Scale (Williams et al. 1997). Frequency of Everyday Discrimination is a seven-item Likert scale

with five response categories: 1 = Never; 2 = Less than once a year; 3 = A few times a year; 4 =

At least once a month; 5 = Almost every day. Some of the items include: (1) You are treated with

less courtesy than other people are; (2) People act as if they are afraid of you; and (3) You

receive poorer service than other people at restaurants or stores. The reliability of this scale is

high, with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .918.

Following Parris et al. (2014) and Watson et al. (2015), we used a six-item scale to

measure environmental identity. These items, borrowed from Clayton (2003) represent how

individuals perceive their relationship with the natural environment. Respondents indicated “how

true of me” each item was on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all true of me” (1)

to “completely true of me” (7). The scale consists of (1) Engaging in environmental behaviors is

important to me; (2) I think of myself as a part of nature, not separate from it; (3) Being a part of

the ecosystem is an important part of who I am; (4) I feel that I have roots to a particular

geographic location that had a significant impact on my development; (5) In general, being part

of the natural world is an important part of my self-image; and (6) My own interests usually

seem to coincide with the position advocated by environmentalists. Cronbach’s Alpha for this

scale is .870.

To measure political liberalism, we follow Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) and ask

‘‘Where would you place yourself on a liberal/conservative scale of political attitudes?”

Responses range from extremely conservative (1) to extremely liberal (7).

14

Controls

Because various other factors might affect the relationship between experience with

discrimination, racial identity, and environmental justice evaluations, we controlled for several

demographic factors. We coded both gender and institution as dummy variables (0=male,

1=female; 0=PWI, 1=HBCU). We also used respondents’ annual parental income level (ranging

from 1= less than $25,000 to 8= more than $250,000) and created a composite measure of both

mother’s and father’s education levels (ranging from 1= less than high school/GED/high school

graduate to 7= doctorate degree).

Dependent variables

To capture respondents’ attitudes and perceptions of the distribution of toxic harms and

environmental damage, we used a seven-point Likert scale to measure agreement with seven

items, which were borrowed from Parris et al. (2014) and Watson et al. (2015). Using principal

component factor analysis with Varimax rotation, these seven items loaded onto three factors:

procedural environmental justice, distributive environmental injustice, and ecological injustice.

Procedural Environmental Justice measures beliefs regarding the processes through

which environmental harms and resources should be distributed. Higher values indicate that

respondents believe distribution decisions should be made via fair processes in which potentially

affected communities are considered. This scale consists of the following 3 items: (1) Equal

treatment of all people should be considered when decision-makers are solving environmental

problems; (2) People have a general responsibility to conserve environmental resources for

future generations; and (3) Decisions about where to situate polluting industries should take into

account the opinions of the people who would live near those sites. Cronbach’s Alpha for this

scale is .798.

15

Distributive Environmental Injustice captures the degree to which respondents perceive

the disproportionate distribution of toxic harms and environmental damage in minority and poor

neighborhoods. Higher response values indicate respondents’ beliefs that environmental harms

are not equitably distributed, with communities of color and poor communities experiencing

higher levels of environmental burdens. This scale measures agreement with the following two

items: (1) Neighborhoods of color are unfairly disadvantaged in terms of exposure to

environmental hazards; and (2) Poor neighborhoods are unfairly disadvantaged in terms of

exposure to environmental hazards. The bivariate correlation for these two items is .725

(p≤.001).

Ecological Injustice measures respondents’ perceptions regarding the harmful treatment

of the ecosystem. The items on this scale are (1) Humans are severely abusing the environment;

(2) The greenhouse effect is dangerous to the environment; and (3) Pesticides and chemicals are

dangerous to the environment. Cronbach’s alpha for the ecological injustice scale is .729. These

items stem from two previous studies regarding environmental concerns (Barkan 2004; Thapa

2001).

RESULTS

Table 1 presents a correlation matrix with means and standard deviations on the diagonal

for each key variable used in the regression models. The mean values for the three measures of

justice evaluations are very similar, suggesting that the sample feels comparably, on average,

regarding perceptions of procedural environmental justice (5.79), distributive environmental

injustice (5.65), and ecological injustice (5.53). Looking at the two measures of racial identity,

though, the sample tends to, on average, have a stronger Black identity (3.68) than experiences

with discrimination (2.87). Both measures of racial identity were measured on a five-point scale,

16

while environmental identity was measured on a seven-point scale, and thus the means of these

variables cannot be compared.

[Table 1 about here]

At the bivariate level, several key variables are significantly correlated. Most notably,

procedural environmental justice has a strong, positive relationship with distributive

environmental injustice (r=.569, p≤.001). Likewise, procedural environmental justice is strongly

correlated with ecological injustice (r=.730, p≤.001). Finally, distributive environmental injustice

and ecological injustice are positively correlated (r=.481, p≤.001). Gender and university are

strongly and negatively correlated (r= -.588, p≤.001), because the HBCU is an all-male college.

Related to our hypotheses, black identity is significantly correlated with procedural

environmental justice (r= .309, p≤.001), distributive environmental injustice (r= .414, p≤.001),

and ecological injustice (r= .252, p≤.01). At the bivariate level, experiences with discrimination

does not have a significant correlation with any measure of the three measures of justice

evaluations. It does, however, have a correlation with Black identity (r=.248 p≤.01).

We use seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) to test the effects of our independent

variables on environmental and ecological justice evaluations. Seemingly unrelated regression is

appropriate for our analysis due to its ability to account for the non-independence among

dependent variables (Minnotte, Mannon, Pedersen Stevens, and Kilger 2008; Timm 2002).

While the three dependent variables are conceptually distinct, they fall under the larger umbrella

of environmental concerns. By allowing for correlation among the errors of the models for the

three types of (in)justice, SUR uses those errors to improve the estimates. Results for SUR are

interpreted in the same way as those from ordinary least squares. We cluster our responses based

on university.

17

Using SUR, we first examined partial models of the effects of both racial identity and

experiences with discrimination on our three outcome variables (Models 1a, 1b, and 1c). Next,

we examined partial models using environmental identity and political liberalism (Models 2a, 2b,

and 2c). Finally, Models 3a, 3b, and 3c represent full models that evaluate the impact all four of

our main independent variables have on perceptions of justice. Table 2 shows results for all

models.

[Table 2 about here]

Hypothesis 1 predicts the positive effect of racial identity on environmental and justice

evaluations and is fully confirmed based on the impact of Black identity. Black identity is

positive and significant in all three of the partial models, and maintains strong significance in the

full models as well. In Model 1a and Model 3a, stronger Black identity increased agreement with

procedural environmental justice perceptions (b=.349, p≤.01 and b=.301, p≤.001, respectively).

Additionally, Black identity exerted positive effects on the perceived severity of distributive

environmental injustice in the partial Model 1b (b=.517, p≤.05) and full Model 3b (b=.473,

p≤.001). Finally, Black identity is positive and significant regarding the influence on ecological

injustice in both the partial (Model 1c) and full (Model 3c) models (b=.294, p≤.001 and b=.239,

p≤.001).

Hypothesis 2 projects that individuals with more experiences with everyday

discrimination will have stronger environmental justice evaluations. While the relationship is as

predicted regarding perceptions of distributive environmental justice in both the partial (b=.054,

p≤.001) and full models (b=.054, p≤.001), the relationship is negatively correlated with

procedural environmental justice (b=-.122, p≤.001) and ecological injustice (b=-.139, p≤.001).

We will discuss this finding further in the discussion section.

18

Regarding the relationship between environmental identity and perceptions of injustice,

we find support for Hypothesis 3 in the partial and full models. First, environmental identity is

positive and significant for procedural environmental justice in the partial Model 2a (b=.300,

p≤.001) and full Model 3a (b=.248, p≤.001) models. Next, there is a positive and significant

relationship between environmental identity and distributive environmental injustice in the

partial Model 2b (b=.336, p≤.05), but this relationship only approaches significance in the full

Model 3b (b=.232, p≤.10). Finally, environmental identity and ecological injustice are

significantly related in both the partial Model 2b (b=.321, p≤.05) and the full Model 3b (b=.260,

p≤.001).

Our final variable of interest, political liberalism, maintains significance for our three

outcome variables in the partial and full models, lending support for Hypothesis 4. In the partial

Model 2a, political liberalism is significant regarding procedural environmental justice (b=.124,

p≤.001). This relationship maintains significance in the full Model 3a (b=.115, p≤.001). Political

liberalism is also positive and significant in relation to distributive environmental injustice in

both the partial Model 2b (b=.129, p≤.001) and full Model 3b (b=.095, p≤.001). Finally,

regarding ecological injustice, political liberalism is positive and significant in the partial Model

3b (b=.112, p≤.001) and full Model 3c (b=.099, p≤.001).

We found some significant relationships among our control variables. First, institution is

negative and significant across all three of the full models. Next, while gender is positive and

significant in Model 3a (procedural environmental justice), it is negative and significant in

Model 3c (ecological injustice). Finally, parents’ income is negative and significant in the full

models for both procedural environmental justice and distributive environmental injustice.

19

DISCUSSION

Previous research has shown the strong effects of environmental identity on

environmental attitudes, behaviors, and justice perceptions (Clayton 2003; Parris et al. 2014;

Stets and Biga 2003; Whitmarsh and O’Neill 2010), but little research has examined the effects

of racial identity. Most existing research on race and environmental justice focuses specifically

on case studies of minority communities affected by environmental harms. Here, we expand on

the existing literature on environmental justice evaluations by investigating the role of racial

identity and experiences with discrimination.

Based on our analysis, we can make several key observations. First, a more holistic

measure of Black racial identity is a much stronger predictor of environmental justice

perceptions than a categorical measure of race, characteristic of previous quantitative studies

(e.g., Parris et al. 2014). Importantly, even when we include EID in the model, racial identity

remains highly significant, suggesting the importance of racial identity measurement in research

regarding social phenomena with racialized outcomes.

Second, experiences with discrimination had a negative significant effect on perceptions

of both procedural environmental justice and ecological injustice, disconfirming Hypothesis 2.

These results indicate that, as experiences with discrimination increases, perceptions of injustice

decrease. Although experiences with discrimination tend to lead to a greater perception of future

discrimination, that same theoretical argument does not extend to perceptions of environmental

racism or environmental injustices. This could be because environmental racism is a macro-level

factor, affecting the community at large, while Hypothesis 2 was based on the relationship

between two individualized factors (personal experiences with discrimination in the past and in

20

the future). This study only sampled from college campuses, and this failure to represent the

community at large could have affected the results of Hypothesis 2.

Next, political liberalism was strongly positively correlated with our three outcome

variables. These findings are aligned with previous work, indicating politically liberal

individuals are more likely to be concerned about environmental issues (e.g., McCright and

Dunlap 2000) and may also be more aware of discrimination against minority groups (Bartels

2010; Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009).

Finally, environmental identity had a significant effect on all three types of justice

evaluations. This finding supports Parris et al.’s (2014) findings on justice perceptions as well as

studies investigating environmental concerns (Stets & Biga 2003; Whitmarsh & O’Neill 2010).

Not surprisingly, individuals who see themselves as connected to the natural world consistently

support prescriptions that regard fairness in the distribution of environmental resources and

harms as well as detect violations of these principles.

Together with the significance of racial identity, these results also emphasize the need for

more research into how identity affects justice processes. Previous research on environmental

concerns has suggested the significance of identity with regards to behavior and self-verification,

but only newly emerging research focuses on identity (Parris et al. 2014; Stets & Biga 2003;

Watson et al. 2015; Whitmarsh & O’Neill 2010). Much of this research has centralized around

environmental identity. As Stets and Biga (2003) reported though, individuals are constantly

navigating a hierarchy of identities as they formulate perceptions. It is important, then, to

investigate a wide-range of identities that could affect environmental justice evaluations.

21

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although our results provide valuable insight into how identity factors affect

environmental justice evaluations, some noteworthy limitations need to be discussed. First, all

respondents were undergraduates at relatively elite, private universities with tuitions and fees of

$40,000-$50,000. Although participants were nearly normally distributed on parental income,

parental education, and experiences with discrimination, other underlying factors may have

influenced the analysis, such as the unmeasured reasons why respondents selected their

respective institutions.

Furthermore, both of these institutions place a strong emphasis on sustainability issues.

The president of one of the surveyed colleges has done extensive research on sustainability in

universities, including a White House initiative on the issue. The other college is home to one of

the largest collections of LEED-certified buildings among American colleges, a ranking that

indicates low levels of environmental impact in the design and operation of buildings.

Environmental justice relates to issues of sustainability, and thus an increased presence of

“green” issues on campus could theoretically lead to an increased awareness of other

environmental issues. Racial identity, then, could theoretically be less prominent on these

campuses than at institutions that are not as immersed in sustainability. This effect could be

especially influential on environmental justice prescriptions.

As a cross-sectional study, this study is also limited because it cannot capture how

respondents’ identities, both racial and environmental, change over time, and how these changes

influence environmental justice evaluations. Phinney (1992) and Sellers et al. (1997) both

propose that racial identity changes over time in response to situational factors. Additionally,

Parris et al. (2014), Swann (1983), and Burke and Stets (2009) report that individuals verify

22

identities through behaviors and attitudes. Thus, a change in an individual’s racial or

environmental identity over time may affect how they form environmental justice evaluations.

Overall, we were able to reaffirm the importance of Black identity, environmental

identity, and political liberalism on environmental and ecological justice evaluations. As such,

we found that racial identity had a significant effect on evaluation concerns, as opposed to past

research, which has indicated that race (as a demographic feature) has little to no effect on

environmental justice evaluations. Experiences with discrimination, however, have a negative

effect on both procedural environmental justice and ecological injustice evaluations, reinforcing

the importance of identity in making justice assessments. This research opens the door for more

research into not only environmental justice evaluations, but also the role of identity, both racial

and otherwise, in any type of justice evaluations.

23

Table 1: Correlation Matrix with Means (and Standard Deviations) On Diagonal (N=141) Pr

oced

ural

En

viro

nmen

tal

Just

ice

Dis

tribu

tive

Envi

ronm

enta

l In

just

ice

Ecol

ogic

al In

just

ice

Bla

ck Id

entit

y

Expe

rienc

es w

ith

Dis

crim

inat

ion

Envi

ronm

enta

l Id

entit

y

Polit

ical

Uni

vers

ity

Gen

der

Inco

me

Pare

nts’

Edu

catio

n

Procedural Environmental Justice 5.79 (1.07)

Distributive Environmental Injustice .569*** 5.65 (1.30)

Ecological Injustice .730***

.481*** 5.53 (1.01)

Black Identity .309*** .414*** .252**

3.68 (.948)

Experiences with Discrimination .006 .160 -.048 .248** 2.87 (.936)

Environmental Identity .353*** .307*** .388*** .176* .002 3.87 (1.32)

Political .124 .131 .175* .134 .484 .122 5.10 (1.13)

University

-.139+ -.083 -.074 .066 -.044 .061 .070 3.70 (1.35)

Gender .230** .151 .088 .129 .141+ .034 -.015 -.588*** .688 (.465)

Income -.002 -.027 .037 .109 -.128 .050 .147+ .130 .078 3.47 (1.75)

Parents’ Education .059 -.007 .074 -.073 .044 .178* .111 -.125 .211** .426*** 3.70 (1.35)

+p ≤.10; * p ≤.05; ** p ≤.01; *** p ≤.001

24

Table 2. Seeming Unrelated Regression, Standardized Coefficients, Clustered on University Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Procedural

Environ Justice

Distributive Environ Injustice

Ecological Injustice

Procedural Environ Justice

Distributive Environ Injustice

Ecological Injustice

Procedural Environ Justice

Distributive Environ Injustice

Ecological Injustice

Racial Factors

Black Identity .349** (.128)

.517* (.212)

.294*** (.090)

.301*** (.075)

.473** (.177)

.239*** (.050)

Experience w/ Disc

-.126*** (.026)

.054*** (.005)

-.147*** (.029)

-.122*** (.038)

.054*** (.008)

-.139*** (.044)

Environ Orientation

EID .300*** (.092)

.336* (.147)

.321* (.044)

.248*** (.075)

.232+ (.122)

.260*** (.032)

Liberalism .124*** (.031)

.129*** (.026)

.112*** (.025)

.115*** (.015)

.095*** (.007)

.099*** (.003)

Demographic Controls

University -.230*** (.052)

-.259 (.173)

-.279*** (.049)

-.435*** (.047)

-.356** (.132)

-.466*** (.004)

-.426*** (.092)

-.380* (.193)

-.401*** (.029)

Gender .236* (.100)

.115 (.189)

-.006 (.054)

.358*** (.016)

.303*** (.042)

.002 (.024)

.202* (.095)

.073 (.174)

-.073*** (.011)

Income -.038*** (.002)

-.047 (.070)

-.015 (.013)

.007 (.008)

-.013 (.034)

.028 (.020)

-.020*** (.005)

-.062* (.031)

-.002 (.011)

Parents’ Ed .075*** (.051)

-.068 (.294)

.404*** (.110)

-.687*** (.010)

-.110** (.036)

-.041 (.041)

-.009 (.018)

-.000 (.016)

.019 (.011)

Constant 4.59***

(.648) 3.81*** (.644)

4.64*** (.161)

4.00*** (.122)

3.94*** (.383)

3.82*** (.163)

3.46*** (.606)

2.61* (1.10)

3.56*** (.081)

Adjusted R2 .104 .131 .055 .176 .107 .163 .203 .178 .162 N 131 131 131 137 137 137 128 128 128 Standard errors in parentheses; +p ≤.10; * p ≤.05; ** p ≤.01; *** p ≤.001

25

APPENDIX 1: VARIABLE CODING Independent Variables (Eigenvalues in Parentheses) Black Identity (α=.862) How much do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about race: (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree)

1. I have a strong sense of belonging to Black people. (.871) 2. Being Black is an important reflection of who I am. (.850) 3. In general, being Black is an important part of my self-image. (.763) 4. I have a strong attachment to other Black people. (.680)

Experience with Discrimination (α=.918) In your day-to-day life, how often do any of the following things happen to you? (1= Never, 2= Less than once a year, 3= A few times a year, 4= At least once a month, 5= Almost everyday)

1. You are treated with less courtesy than other people are. (.857) 2. You are treated with less respect than other people are. (.882) 3. You receive poorer service than other people at restaurants or stores. (.855) 4. People act as if they think you are not smart. (.842) 5. People act as if they are afraid of you. (.689) 6. People act as if they think you are dishonest. (.802) 7. People act as if they’re better than you are. (.836)

Environmental Identity (α=.835) How “true” of you are each of the following statements? (1 = Not at all true of me, 7= completely true of me) 1. Engaging in environmental behaviors is important to me. (.642) 2. I think of myself as a part of nature, not separate from it. (.784) 3. Being a part of the ecosystem is an important part of who I am. (.851) 4. I feel that I have roots to a particular geographic location that had a significant impact on

my development. (.763) 5. In general, being part of the natural world is an important part of my self-image. (.868) 6. My own interests usually seem to coincide with the position advocated by

environmentalists. (.546) Political Liberalism Where would you place yourself on a liberal/conservative scale of political attitudes? (1 = Extremely Conservative, 7 = Extremely Liberal) Controls Gender: 0 = Male, 1 = Female Institution: 0= Predominantly White College, 1= Historically Black College

26

Income: What is your parents’ estimated annual combined income? 1. Less than 25,000 2. $25,001-$50,000 3. $50,001-$75,000 4. $75,001-$100,000 5. $100,001-$150,000 6. $150,001-$200,000 7. $200,001-$250,000 8. More than $250,000 Mother’s/ Father’s Education: What is the highest level of school that your mother (father) or female (male) guardian has completed? 0. N/A 1. High school graduate/GED /less than high school 2. Technical/Vocational 3. Some college or Associates degree 4. Bachelor’s degree 5. Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MBA, MPH, MSW) 6. Professional school degree (e.g., MD, JD, DVM, DDS) 7. Doctorate degree (e.g., PhD, EdD) Dependent Variables (Eigenvalues in Parentheses) Procedural Environmental Justice (α=.790)

1. Equal treatment of all people should be considered when decision-makers are solving environmental problems. (.867)

2. People have a general responsibility to conserve environmental resources for future generations. (.817)

3. Decisions about where to situate polluting industries should take into account the opinions of the people who would live near those sites. (.838)

Distributive Environmental Injustice: (r=.725, p≤ .001)

1. Neighborhoods of color are unfairly disadvantaged in terms of exposure to environmental hazards. (.901)

2. Poor neighborhoods are unfairly disadvantaged in terms of exposure to environmental hazards. (.877)

Ecological Injustice (α=.790)

1. Humans are severely abusing the environment. (.597) 2. The greenhouse effect is dangerous to the environment. (.713)

Pesticides and chemicals are dangerous to the environment. (.633)

27

References

Barkan, Steven E. 2004. “Explaining Public Support for the Environmental Movement: A Civic

Voluntarism Model.” Social Science Quarterly 85(4):913-37.

Bartels, Larry M. 2010. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Baxter, Brian. 2005. A Theory of Ecological Justice. New York: Routledge.

Bositis, David A. 2012. “Blacks & the 2012 Democratic National Convention.” Joint Center for

Political and Economic Studies.

Brown, Tony N., James S. Jackson, Kendrick T. Brown, Robert M. Sellers, Shelley Keiper, and

Warde J. Manuel. 2003. “There’s no Race on the Playing Field: Perceptions of Racial

Discrimination among White and Black Athletes.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues

27(2):162-83.

Bullard, Robert Doyle. 1994. Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of

Color. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

Bullard, Robert Doyle. 2000. Dumping in Dixie. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bullard, Robert D., Paul Mohai, Robin Saha, and Beverly Wright. 2007. Toxic Wastes and Race

at Twenty: 1987-2007. Cleveland, OH: Justice and Witness Ministries.

Burke, Peter J. and Jan E. Stets. 2009. Identity Theory. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

Burke, Peter J. 1991. “Identity Processes and Social Stress.” American Sociological Review

56:836-49.

Čapek, Stella. 1993. “The Environmental Justice Frame.” Social Problems 40(1):5-24.

28

Clayton, Susan. 2003. “Environmental Identity: A Conceptual and an Operational Definition.”

Pp. 45-65 in Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of

Nature, edited by S. Clayton and S. Opotow. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Cropanzano, Russell, Jerel E. Slaughter, and Peter D. Bachiochi. 2005. “Organizational Justice

and Black Applicants’ Reactions to Affirmative Action.” Journal of Applied Psychology

90(6):1168-84.

Dulin-Keita, Akilah, Lonnie Hannon, Jose R. Fernandez, and William C. Cockerham. 2011.

“The Defining Moment: Children's Conceptualization of Race and Experiences with

Racial Discrimination.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(4):662-82.

Dunlap, Riley E., and Aaron M. McCright. 2011. “Organized Climate Denial. In J. S. Dryzek, R.

B. Norgaard, and D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and

Society (pp. 144–160). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fiske, Susan T. and Shelley E. Taylor. 2008. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Harper, Casandra E. 2011. “Identity, Intersectionality, and Mixed-Methods Approaches.” New

Directions for Institutional Research 151:103-15.

Hegtvedt, Karen A. 2006. “Justice Frameworks.” Pp. 46-69 in Contemporary Social

Psychological Theories, edited by P. Burke. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hughes, Diane. 2003. “Correlates of African American and Latino Parents’ Messages to

Children about Ethnicity and Race: A Comparative Study of Socialization.” American

Journal of Community Psychology 31(1/2):15-33.

29

Hughes, Diane, Emile P. Smith, Howard C. Stevenson, James Rodriguez, Deborah J. Johnson,

and Paul Spicer. 2006. “Parents’ Ethnic–Racial Socialization Practices: A Review of

Research and Directions for Future Study.” Developmental Psychology 42 (5):747-70.

Johnson, Cassandra Y., J. M. Bowker, and H. Ken Cordell. 2004. “Ethnic Variation in

Environmental Belief and Behavior: An Examination of the New Ecological Paradigm in

a Social Psychological Context.” Environment & Behavior 36(2):157-86.

Jost, John T. and Aaron C. Kay. 2010. “Social Justice: History, Theory, and Research.” In S. T.

Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 1122–

1165). New York: Wiley.

Jost, John T., Christopher M. Federico, and Jaime L. Napier. 2009. “Political Ideology: Its

Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities.” Annual Review of Psychology 60:307–37.

McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2000. “Challenging Global Warming as a Social

Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter-Claims.” Social

Problems 47(4):499-522.

Mohai, Paul, and Bunyan Bryant. 1998. “Is There A “Race” Effect On Concern For

Environmental Quality?” Public Opinion Quarterly 62(4):475-505.

Operario, Don and Susan T. Fiske. 2001. “Ethnic Identity Moderates Perceptions of Prejudice:

Judgments of Personal Versus Group Discrimination and Subtle Versus Blatant Bias.”

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(5):550-61.

Opotow, Susan and Susan Clayton. 1994. “Green Justice: Conceptions of Fairness and the

Natural World.” Journal of Social Issues 50(3):1-11.

Pellow, David N. and Robert J. Brulle. 2005. Power, Justice, and the Environment: A Critical

Appraisal of the Environmental Justice Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

30

Park, Lisa S. H. and David N. Pellow. 2011. The Slums of Aspen: Immigrants vs. the

Environment in America's Eden. New York: New York University Press.

Parris, Christie L., Karen A. Hegtvedt, Cathryn Johnson, and Lesley Watson. 2014. “Justice for

All? Factors Affecting Perceptions Environmental and Ecological Injustice” Social

Justice Research 27(1):67-98.

Pastor, Jr., Manuel, Jim Sadd, and John Hipp. 2001. “Which Came First? Toxic Facilities,

Minority Move-In, and Environmental Justice.” Journal of Urban Affairs 23(1):1-21.

Pellow, David N. and Robert J. Brulle. 2005. Power, Justice, and the Environment: A Critical

Appraisal of the Environmental Justice Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Phinney, Jean S. 1992. “The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A New Scale for Use with

Adolescents and Young Adults from Diverse Groups.” Journal of Adolescent Research

7:156-76.

Sellers, Robert M., Stephanie A. J. Rowley, Tabbye M. Chavous, J. Nichole Shelton, and Mia A.

Smith. 1998. “Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A Preliminary Investigation

of Reliability and Construct Validity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

73(4):805-15.

Sellers, Robert M., and J. Nicole Shelton. 2003. “The Role of Racial Identity in Perceived Racial

Discrimination.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84(5):1079-92.

Shelton, J. Nicole and Robert M. Sellers. 2000. “Situational Stability and Variability in African

American Racial Identity.” Journal of Black Psychology 26(1):27-50.

Stets, Jane E. 2003. “Justice, Emotion, and Identity Theory.” Pp 105-122 in Advances in Identity

Theory and Research, edited by P.J. Burke, T.J. Owens, R. T. Serpe, and P.A. Thoits.

New York, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

31

Stets, Jan E. and Chris F. Biga. 2003. “Bringing Identity Theory into Environmental Sociology.”

Sociological Theory 21(4):398-423.

Stryker, Sheldon and Peter J. Burke. 2000. “The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory.”

Social Psychology Quarterly 63(4):284-97.

Taylor, Dorceta E. 2000. “The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm: Injustice Framing

and the Social Construction of Environmental Discourses.” American Behavioral

Scientist 43(4):508-80.

Thapa, Brijesh. 2001. “Environmental Concern: A Comparative Analysis between Students in

Recreation and Park Management and Other Departments.” Environmental Education

Research 7(1):39-52.

United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. 1987. Toxic Wastes and Race in the

United States. United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, New York.

Watson, Lesley, Cathryn Johnson, Karen A. Hegtvedt, and Christie L. Parris. 2015.

“Being Green: Including Identity in Conceptual Frameworks for Environmentally

Responsible Behaviors.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education

16(3):310-26.

Whitmarsh, Lorraine and Saffron O'Neill. 2010. “Green Identity, Green Living? The Role of

Pro-Environmental Self-Identity in Determining Consistency across Diverse Pro-

Environmental Behaviours.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(3):305-14.

Williams David R., Yan Yu, James S. Jackson, Norman B. Anderson. 1997 “Racial Differences

in Physical and Mental Health.” Journal of Health Psychology 2:335-51.

32

Xiao, Chenyang , and Aaron M. McCright. 2007. “Environmental Concern and

Sociodemographic Variables: A Study of Statistical Models.” Journal of Environmental

Education 38(2):3-14.