IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v23y2003i1p69-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. Forslund, Johanna & Samakovlis, Eva & Vredin Johansson, Maria & Barregård, Lars, 2009. "Does remediation save lives? On the cost of cleaning up arsenic-contaminated sites in Sweden," Working Papers 108, National Institute of Economic Research.
    3. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2011. "The Political Economy of Environmental Justice," MPRA Paper 101191, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Parry, Ian W.H. & Sigman, Hilary & Walls, Margaret & Williams, Roberton C., III, 2005. "The Incidence of Pollution Control Policies," Discussion Papers 10651, Resources for the Future.
    5. Michael Greenstone & Justin Gallagher, 2008. "Does Hazardous Waste Matter? Evidence from the Housing Market and the Superfund Program," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(3), pages 951-1003.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Stavins, Robert, 2003. "Market-Based Environmental Policies: What Can We Learn from U.S. Experience and Related Research?," Working Paper Series rwp03-031, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. 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.
    10. Scott Marchi & James Hamilton, 2006. "Assessing the Accuracy of Self-Reported Data: an Evaluation of the Toxics Release Inventory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 57-76, January.
    11. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2015. "Regulating Ambiguous Risks: The Less than Rational Regulation of Pharmaceuticals," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S2), pages 387-422.
    12. Broughel, James & Viscusi, Kip, 2017. "Death by Regulation: How Regulations Can Increase Mortality Risk," Working Papers 06864, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Cass Sunstein & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "Overreaction to Fearsome Risks," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 435-449, March.
    16. Kim, GwanSeon & Schieffer, Jack & Mark, Tyler, 2020. "Do superfund sites affect local property values? Evidence from a spatial hedonic approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 15-28.
    17. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    18. 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.
    19. Kniesner, Thomas J. & Viscusi, W. Kip, 2023. "Promoting Equity through Equitable Risk Tradeoffs," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 8-34, March.
    20. 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.

    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.