Various studies have shown that minorities bear a disproportionate exposure to environmental pollution. To understand the causes of this environmental inequality, it is important to analyse which structural conditions foster environmental inequality. This study uses an original dataset by combining the German 2011 census with georeferenced pollution data to analyse the variation in environmental inequality between German cities. While structural characteristics derived from standard theories of environmental inequality do a rather poor job of explaining regional differences, an overlooked indicator correlates strongly with environmental inequality: the geographic centrality of polluting facilities within the urban space. Including this structural measure into the city-fixed effects multilevel analysis accounts for more than 25% of the variation between cities. This highlights the importance of taking geographic conditions into account when analysing environmental inequality.
AlbaRDLoganJRStultsBJet al. (1999) Immigrant groups in the suburbs: A reexamination of suburbanization and spatial assimilation. American Sociological Review64(3): 446–460.
2.
ArdK (2015) Trends in exposure to industrial air toxins for different racial and socioeconomic groups: A spatial and temporal examination of environmental inequality in the U.S. from 1995 to 2004. Social Science Research53: 375–390.
3.
ArdK (2016) By all measures: An examination of the relationship between segregation and health risk from air pollution. Population and Environment38(1): 1–20.
4.
AshMFetterTR (2004) Who lives on the wrong side of the environmental tracks? Evidence from the EPA’s risk-screening environmental indicators model. Social Science Quarterly85(2): 441–462.
5.
BadenBMCourseyDL (2002) The locality of waste sites within the city of Chicago: A demographic, social, and economic analysis. Resource and Energy Economics24(1–2): 53–93.
6.
BanzhafHSWalshRP (2008) Do people vote with their feet? An empirical test of Tiebout’s mechanism. American Economic Review98(3): 843–863.
7.
BBSR (2017) Indikatoren und Karten zur Raum- und Stadtentwicklung (INKAR) 2017. Available at: http://www.inkar.de/ (accessed 20 March 2017).
8.
BeenVGuptaF (1997) Coming to the nuisance or going to the barrios – A longitudinal analysis of environmental justice claims. Ecology Law Quarterly24(1): 1–56.
9.
BestHRüttenauerT (2018) How selective migration shapes environmental inequality in Germany: Evidence from micro-level panel data. European Sociological Review34(1): 52–63.
10.
CampbellHEKimYEckerdA (2015) Rethinking Environmental Justice in Sustainable Cities: Insights from Agent-Based Modeling. Routledge Studies in Public Administration and Environmental Sustainability. New York and London: Routledge.
11.
CrowderKDowneyL (2010) Inter-neighborhood migration, race, and environmental hazards: Modeling micro-level processes of environmental inequality. American Journal of Sociology115(4): 1110–1149.
12.
DeproBTimminsCO’NeilM (2015) White flight and coming to the nuisance: Can residential mobility explain environmental injustice?Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists2(3): 439–468.
13.
DiekmannAMeyerR (2010) Demokratischer Smog? Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Zusammenhang zwischen Sozialschicht und Umweltbelastungen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie62(3): 437–457.
14.
DowneyL (2005) The unintended significance of race: Environmental racial inequality in Detroit. Social Forces83(3): 971–1007.
15.
DowneyL (2007) US metropolitan-area variation in environmental inequality outcomes. Urban Studies44(5–6): 953–977.
16.
DowneyLHawkinsB (2008) Race, income, and environmental inequality in the United States. Sociological Perspectives51(4): 759–781.
ElliottJRFrickelS (2013) The historical nature of cities: A study of urbanization and hazardous waste accumulation. American Sociological Review78(4): 521–543.
19.
ElliottJRFrickelS (2015) Urbanization as socioenvironmental succession: The case of hazardous industrial site accumulation. American Journal of Sociology120(6): 1736–1777.
20.
EndersCKTofighiD (2007) Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods12(2): 121–138.
21.
European Commission (2006) Guidance document for the implementation of the European PRTR. Available at: http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/docs/en_prtr.pdf (accessed 2 May 2016).
22.
FunderburgRLaurianL (2015) Bolstering environmental (in)justice claims with a quasi-experimental research design. Land Use Policy49: 511–526.
23.
GrantDTrautnerMNDowneyLet al. (2010) Bringing the polluters back in: Environmental inequality and the organization of chemical production. American Sociological Review75(4): 479–504.
24.
HamiltonJT (1995) Testing for environmental racism: Prejudice, profits, political power?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management14(1): 107–132.
25.
HershR (1995) Race and Industrial Hazards: A Historical Geography of the Pittsburgh Region, 1900–1990. Discussion Paper 95(18). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
26.
HoxJWijngaards-de MeijL (2015) The multilevel regression model. In: BestHWolfC (eds) The Sage Handbook of Regression Analysis and Causal Inference. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Reference, pp. 133–152.
27.
HuangJLuXXSellersJM (2007) A global comparative analysis of urban form: Applying spatial metrics and remote sensing. Landscape and Urban Planning82(4): 184–197.
28.
KriegEJ (1995) A socio-historical interpretation of toxic waste sites. American Journal of Economics and Sociology54(1): 1–14.
29.
MasseyDSDentonNA (1988) The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces67(2): 281–315.
30.
MasseyDSDentonNA (1989) Hypersegregation in U.S. metropolitan areas: Black and Hispanic segregation along five dimensions. Demography26(3): 373–391.
31.
MohaiPSahaR (2015a) Which came first, people or pollution? A review of theory and evidence from longitudinal environmental justice studies. Environmental Research Letters10(12): 125011.
32.
MohaiPSahaR (2015b) Which came first, people or pollution? Assessing the disparate siting and post-siting demographic change hypotheses of environmental injustice. Environmental Research Letters10(11): 115008.
33.
MusterdS (2005) Social and ethnic segregation in Europe: Levels, causes, and effects. Journal of Urban Affairs27(3): 331–348.
34.
OakesJMAndertonDLAndersonAB (1996) A longitudinal analysis of environmental equity in communities with hazardous waste facilities. Social Science Research25(2): 125–148.
35.
PadillaCMKihal-TalantikiteWVieiraVMet al. (2014) Air quality and social deprivation in four French metropolitan areas: A localized spatio-temporal environmental inequality analysis. Environmental Research134: 315–324.
36.
PaisJCrowderKDowneyL (2014) Unequal trajectories: Racial and class differences in residential exposure to industrial hazard. Social Forces92(3): 1189–1215.
37.
PastorMMorello-FroschRSaddJL (2005) The air is always cleaner on the other side: Race, space, and ambient air toxics exposures in California. Journal of Urban Affairs27(2): 127–148.
38.
PastorMSaddJHippJ (2001) Which came first? Toxic facilities, minority move-in, and environmental justice. Journal of Urban Affairs23(1): 1–21.
39.
ReardonSFO’SullivanD (2004) Measures of spatial segregation. Sociological Methodology34(1): 121–162.
40.
RüttenauerT (2018) Neighbours matter: A nation-wide small-area assessment of environmental inequality in Germany. Social Science Research70: 198–211.
41.
SahaRMohaiP (2005) Historical context and hazardous waste facility siting: Understanding temporal patterns in Michigan. Social Problems52(4): 618–648.
42.
SchweitzerLStephensonM (2007) Right answers, wrong questions: Environmental justice as urban research. Urban Studies44(2): 319–337.
43.
ShaikhSLLoomisJB (1999) An investigation into the presence and causes of environmental inequity in Denver, Colorado. The Social Science Journal36(1): 77–92.
44.
SiegHSmithVKBanzhafHSet al. (2004) Estimating the general equilibrium benefits of large changes in spatially delineated public goods. International Economic Review45(4): 1047–1077.
TurnerMARossS (2005) How racial discrimination affects the search for housing. In: De Souza BriggsXN (ed.) The Geography of Opportunity. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 81–100.
47.
WolvertonA (2009) Effects of socio-economic and input-related factors on polluting plants’ location decisions. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy9(1): 1–30.
48.
WolvertonA (2012) The role of demographic and cost-related factors in determining where plants locate: A tale of two Texas cities. In: BanzhafHS (ed.) The Political Economy of Environmental Justice. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 199–222.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
