IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v23y2003i1p69-79.html

PER Pressure: New Jersey's “Population Emissions Ratio” Environmental Equity Screening Model

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Atlas

Abstract

In recent years, much attention has focused on how to incorporate environmental equity considerations into government permitting programs for environmentally regulated facilities. On February 4, 2002, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) became the first state environmental agency to propose a broad legally binding rule intended to guard against environmental inequity in its permitting decisions. The proposed rule centered on an innovative computerized environmental equity (EE) screening model that used “Population Emissions Ratios” to identify small geographic areas in which environmental equity concerns might exist and to simulate the effect on statewide environmental equity of increasing environmental risks in small geographic areas. The NJDEP's model examined an extensive array of ethnic groups, included a variety of environmental risks, evaluated most of those risks in terms of human health, and used an innovative simulation process designed to identify permitting decisions that would worsen statewide environmental inequity. The results of the NJDEP's efforts, however, pose substantial concerns. For example, some key provisions of the NJDEP's model were inadequately explained and some were illogical and would bias its results. The model might be susceptible to generating implausible results due to small, meaningless, and/or essentially random fluctuations in its data inputs. The model used relatively large geographic areas as the units of analysis and interpolated results between them, rather than using smaller geographic areas and avoiding interpolation errors. Finally, the environmental risks evaluated by the model were both arguably over‐ and underinclusive. Thus, the NJDEP's efforts, although noteworthy, raised more issues than they settled.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Atlas, 2003. "PER Pressure: New Jersey's “Population Emissions Ratio” Environmental Equity Screening Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 69-79, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:1:p:69-79
    DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00290
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1539-6924.00290?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James T. Hamilton & W. Kip Viscusi, 1999. "Calculating Risks?: The Spatial and Political Dimensions of Hazardous Waste Policy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262082780, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    2. Anna Alberini & Stefania Tonin & Margherita Turvani & Aline Chiabai, 2007. "Paying for permanence: Public preferences for contaminated site cleanup," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 155-178, April.
    3. Broughel, James & Viscusi, Kip, 2017. "Death by Regulation: How Regulations Can Increase Mortality Risk," Working Papers 06864, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    4. Parry, Ian & Walls, Margaret & Sigman, Hilary & Williams III, Roberton, 2005. "The Incidence of Pollution Control Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-24, Resources for the Future.
    5. Jason Bell & Joel Huber & W. Kip Viscusi, 2009. "Voter-weighted environmental preferences," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 655-671.
    6. Gawande, Kishore & Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K., 2001. "A consumption-based theory of the environmental Kuznets curve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 101-112, April.
    7. Forslund, Johanna & Samakovlis, Eva & Johansson, Maria Vredin, 2008. "Is it wise to combine environmental and labour market policies? An analysis of a Swedish subsidy programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 547-558, April.
    8. Ted Gayer & James T. Hamilton & W. Kip Viscusi, 2002. "The Market Value of Reducing Cancer Risk: Hedonic Housing Prices with Changing Information," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(2), pages 266-289, October.
    9. Arian Khaleghi Moghadam & Burc Kayahan, 2017. "What influences the pattern of pollutant releases? An investigation of firms’ siting and households’ sorting decisions in Ontario, Canada," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(4), pages 743-754, April.
    10. Scott Farrow & W. Kip Viscusi, 2013. "Towards principles and standards for the benefit–cost analysis of safety," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 5, pages 172-193, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Daniel P. Aldrich, 2008. "Location, Location, Location: Selecting Sites For Controversial Facilities," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 53(01), pages 145-172.
    12. Gayer, Ted & Kip Viscusi, W., 2002. "Housing price responses to newspaper publicity of hazardous waste sites," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 33-51, February.
    13. David M. Konisky & Tyler S. Schario, 2010. "Examining Environmental Justice in Facility‐Level Regulatory Enforcement," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(3), pages 835-855, September.
    14. Burda, Martin & Harding, Matthew, 2014. "Environmental Justice: Evidence from Superfund cleanup durations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 380-401.
    15. Paul Mohai & Robin Saha, 2006. "Reassessing racial and socioeconomic disparities in environmental justice research," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 43(2), pages 383-399, May.
    16. Howard F. Chang & Hilary Sigman, 2014. "An Empirical Analysis of Cost Recovery in Superfund Cases: Implications for Brownfields and Joint and Several Liability," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 477-504, September.
    17. Deaton, Brady J., Jr. & Hoehn, John P., 2002. "The Effect Of Hazardous Waste Sites On Property Values In Zones Of High Industrial Activity: A Hedonic Approach," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19612, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Hajnal István, 2017. "Evaluation of stigmatized properties," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 1615-1626, December.
    19. Pamela Davidson & Douglas Anderton, 2000. "Demographics of dumping ii: a national environmental equity survey and the distribution of hazardous materials handlers," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 37(4), pages 461-466, November.
    20. Sigman, Hilary, 2001. "The Pace of Progress at Superfund Sites: Policy Goals and Interest Group Influence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 315-344, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:1:p:69-79. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.