[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jchals/v9y2018i1p9-d133855.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delivering Environmental Justice through Environmental Impact Assessment in the United States: The Challenge of Public Participation

Author

Listed:
  • Okhumode H. Yakubu

    (Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Health and Social Services Building, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001, USA)

Abstract
The United States (US) occupies the frontline of events in modern history of environmental reform. The federal government through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 has not only established an environmental policy template for other nations to emulate, but has also produced a viable tool for regulating environmental quality (EQ) and delivering environmental justice (EJ)—Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). However, environmental history provides evidence that political process and special interests govern the attainment of the EJ goal by way of inadequate adherence to the NEPA provisions. Public participation (PP) is a principal requirement for achieving EJ and constitutes a pivotal determinant of EIA outcome. Effective delivery of EJ through EIA does require complete compliance with NEPA stipulations. Furthermore, the responsible agency’s resources in terms of both funding and commitment in allowing for the full representation of the opinions of residents within communities of concern (CoC) for environmental decision-making process are critically important. Public health research approach offers valuable tools towards achieving EJ goals. To approach this topic, first I provide a historical background on EIA and EJ from the standpoint of the NEPA. Second, I discuss the meaning and impediments of PP. Third, I examine two scenarios viz the Triassic Park Hazardous Waste Dump in Roswell, and the public hearing of the recent “controversial” oil and gas ordinance in Sandoval County, both in New Mexico. Finally, in the discussion part, I attempt to evaluate PP in both cases and suggest that none of the criteria seem to have been met in either case. I conclude that the Home State Rule designation of New Mexico State in terms of control over oil and gas activities places it at an advantage in benefitting from a fair PP.

Suggested Citation

  • Okhumode H. Yakubu, 2018. "Delivering Environmental Justice through Environmental Impact Assessment in the United States: The Challenge of Public Participation," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:9:y:2018:i:1:p:9-:d:133855
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/9/1/9/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/9/1/9/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee Liu & Jie Liu & Zhenguo Zhang, 2014. "Environmental Justice and Sustainability Impact Assessment: In Search of Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts Caused by Coal Mining in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Kyriaki Remoundou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2009. "Environmental Effects on Public Health: An Economic Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 6(8), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Wallerstein, Nina, 1999. "Power between evaluator and community: research relationships within New Mexico's healthier communities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 39-53, July.
    4. Nunzia Linzalone & Giorgio Assennato & Adele Ballarini & Ennio Cadum & Mario Cirillo & Liliana Cori & Francesca De Maio & Loredana Musmeci & Marinella Natali & Sabrina Rieti & Maria Eleonora Soggiu & , 2014. "Health Impact Assessment Practice and Potential for Integration within Environmental Impact and Strategic Environmental Assessments in Italy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Verina Ingram, 2006. "Book Review: "Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making", Stephen P. Depoe, John W. Delicath and Marie-France Aepli Elsenbeer (Eds.)," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(01), pages 107-109.
    6. Thomas C. Beierle, 1999. "Using Social Goals To Evaluate Public Participation In Environmental Decisions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 16(3‐4), pages 75-103, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jin Guo & Junhong Bai, 2019. "The Role of Public Participation in Environmental Governance: Empirical Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Murat Gündüz, 2020. "Healthcare expenditure and carbon footprint in the USA: evidence from hidden cointegration approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 801-811, July.
    2. Ben Cave & Ryngan Pyper & Birgitte Fischer-Bonde & Sarah Humboldt-Dachroeden & Piedad Martin-Olmedo, 2021. "Lessons from an International Initiative to Set and Share Good Practice on Human Health in Environmental Impact Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-23, February.
    3. Zhen Shi & Fengping Wu & Huinan Huang & Xinrui Sun & Lina Zhang, 2019. "Comparing Economics, Environmental Pollution and Health Efficiency in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-30, December.
    4. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    5. Bing Xue & Mario Tobias, 2015. "Sustainability in China: Bridging Global Knowledge with Local Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-7, March.
    6. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    7. Kraemer Diaz, Anne E. & Spears Johnson, Chaya R. & Arcury, Thomas A., 2013. "Variation in the interpretation of scientific integrity in community-based participatory health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 134-142.
    8. Beierle, Thomas & Cayford, Jerrell, 2001. "Evaluating Dispute Resolution as an Approach to Public Participation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-40, Resources for the Future.
    9. Griewald, Yuliana & Clemens, Gerhard & Kamp, Johannes & Gladun, Elena & Hölzel, Norbert & von Dressler, Hubertus, 2017. "Developing land use scenarios for stakeholder participation in Russia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 264-276.
    10. Joana Setzer & Rachel Biderman, 2013. "Increasing Participation in Climate Policy Implementation: A Case for Engaging SMEs from the Transport Sector in the City of São Paulo," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(5), pages 806-821, October.
    11. Thomas C. Beierle, 2002. "The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 739-749, August.
    12. Namatama, Nathan, 2020. "An assessment of stakeholders’ participation in land use planning process of Luapula Province Planning Authority," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    13. Alexander H DeGolia & Elizabeth H T Hiroyasu & Sarah E Anderson, 2019. "Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    14. Beierle, Thomas C. & Cayford, Jerry, 2001. "Evaluating Dispute Resolution as an Approach to Public Participation," Discussion Papers 10899, Resources for the Future.
    15. Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    16. Linda Sprague Martinez & Ellin Reisner & Maria Campbell & Doug Brugge, 2017. "Participatory Democracy, Community Organizing and the Community Assessment of Freeway Exposure and Health (CAFEH) Partnership," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, February.
    17. Chung, Kimberly & Lounsbury, David W., 2006. "The role of power, process, and relationships in participatory research for statewide HIV/AIDS programming," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2129-2140, October.
    18. Gui, Emi Minghui & Diesendorf, Mark & MacGill, Iain, 2017. "Distributed energy infrastructure paradigm: Community microgrids in a new institutional economics context," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1355-1365.
    19. Tyler Andrew Scott & Nicola Ulibarri & Omar Perez Figueroa, 2020. "NEPA and National Trends in Federal Infrastructure Siting in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(5), pages 605-633, September.
    20. Julia Díez & Pedro Gullón & María Sandín Vázquez & Belén Álvarez & María Del Prado Martín & María Urtasun & Maite Gamarra & Joel Gittelsohn & Manuel Franco, 2018. "A Community-Driven Approach to Generate Urban Policy Recommendations for Obesity Prevention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:9:y:2018:i:1:p:9-:d:133855. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.