Navigating justice: Examining the intersection of procedural and distributive justice in environmental impact assessment in Puerto Rico

IF 9.8 1区 社会学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental Impact Assessment Review Pub Date : 2024-08-31 DOI:10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107648
Omar Pérez Figueroa , Nicola Ulibarri
{"title":"Navigating justice: Examining the intersection of procedural and distributive justice in environmental impact assessment in Puerto Rico","authors":"Omar Pérez Figueroa ,&nbsp;Nicola Ulibarri","doi":"10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107648","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recognizing that centuries of mistreatment of low-income and minority communities by governments and corporations have resulted in widespread exposure to environmental harms, academics and policymakers are seeking ways to improve environmental justice. While it is commonly assumed that improved <em>procedural justice</em> (meaningful participation in decision making) should improve <em>distributive justice</em> (equitable distribution of environmental harms and benefits), empirical evidence of this link is nascent. This paper evaluates whether differing approaches to procedural justice shape recognition of distributive injustices by policymakers, focusing on implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in Puerto Rico. NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of projects they implement, fund, or permit; this review commonly includes an assessment of the project's impacts on distributive justice. Drawing on document analysis and interviews with project developers, regulators, and community organizations, we explore how and why four NEPA reviews consider distributional impacts. In all four cases, the community mobilized to voice concerns about the proposed projects' impacts, but the lead agencies and project developers did not always create the space for those voices to collaboratively shape the review. This demonstrates the role of the project developer in how distributive justice considerations are treated, as project leads have discretion on whether and when to provide space for community groups to participate in the process. This research makes two primary contributions. First, by linking features of the decision-making process with environmental justice-related outputs, this research provides practical understanding of ways to support distributive justice and expands knowledge about how participatory governance works within the context of US environmental policy. Second, by studying NEPA's implementation in Puerto Rico, we assess challenges associated with implementing Environmental Impact Assessment in a territorial setting, where the demographics and intensity of environmental problems are distinct from the 'traditional' American context the policies were designed to protect.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":309,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","volume":"109 ","pages":"Article 107648"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019592552400235X/pdfft?md5=7fa3a65c9cac2beb21548900bc48fdec&pid=1-s2.0-S019592552400235X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019592552400235X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recognizing that centuries of mistreatment of low-income and minority communities by governments and corporations have resulted in widespread exposure to environmental harms, academics and policymakers are seeking ways to improve environmental justice. While it is commonly assumed that improved procedural justice (meaningful participation in decision making) should improve distributive justice (equitable distribution of environmental harms and benefits), empirical evidence of this link is nascent. This paper evaluates whether differing approaches to procedural justice shape recognition of distributive injustices by policymakers, focusing on implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in Puerto Rico. NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of projects they implement, fund, or permit; this review commonly includes an assessment of the project's impacts on distributive justice. Drawing on document analysis and interviews with project developers, regulators, and community organizations, we explore how and why four NEPA reviews consider distributional impacts. In all four cases, the community mobilized to voice concerns about the proposed projects' impacts, but the lead agencies and project developers did not always create the space for those voices to collaboratively shape the review. This demonstrates the role of the project developer in how distributive justice considerations are treated, as project leads have discretion on whether and when to provide space for community groups to participate in the process. This research makes two primary contributions. First, by linking features of the decision-making process with environmental justice-related outputs, this research provides practical understanding of ways to support distributive justice and expands knowledge about how participatory governance works within the context of US environmental policy. Second, by studying NEPA's implementation in Puerto Rico, we assess challenges associated with implementing Environmental Impact Assessment in a territorial setting, where the demographics and intensity of environmental problems are distinct from the 'traditional' American context the policies were designed to protect.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正义导航:审查波多黎各环境影响评估中程序正义和分配正义的交叉点
认识到政府和企业数百年来对低收入和少数民族社区的虐待导致了环境危害的普遍存在,学术界和政策制定者正在寻求改善环境正义的方法。尽管人们普遍认为,改善程序公正(有意义地参与决策)应能改善分配公正(公平分配环境危害和利益),但有关这种联系的经验证据还很缺乏。本文以波多黎各执行《国家环境政策法》(NEPA)的情况为重点,评估不同的程序正义方法是否会影响决策者对分配不公的认识。国家环境政策法》要求联邦机构对其实施、资助或许可的项目的潜在环境影响进行评估;这种审查通常包括评估项目对分配公正的影响。通过文件分析以及对项目开发商、监管机构和社区组织的访谈,我们探讨了四项《国家环境影响评估法》审查如何以及为何要考虑分配影响。在所有四个案例中,社区都动员起来表达对拟议项目影响的担忧,但牵头机构和项目开发商并不总是为这些声音创造空间,以共同塑造审查结果。这表明了项目开发商在如何处理分配公正问题上所扮演的角色,因为项目牵头机构可以自行决定是否以及何时为社区团体参与项目进程提供空间。这项研究有两个主要贡献。首先,通过将决策过程的特征与环境正义相关产出联系起来,本研究提供了对支持分配正义的方法的实际理解,并扩展了有关参与式治理如何在美国环境政策背景下发挥作用的知识。其次,通过研究 NEPA 在波多黎各的实施情况,我们评估了在领土环境中实施环境影响评估所面临的挑战,在领土环境中,环境问题的人口构成和严重程度与政策旨在保护的 "传统 "美国环境截然不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
10.10%
发文量
200
审稿时长
33 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Impact Assessment Review is an interdisciplinary journal that serves a global audience of practitioners, policymakers, and academics involved in assessing the environmental impact of policies, projects, processes, and products. The journal focuses on innovative theory and practice in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Papers are expected to present innovative ideas, be topical, and coherent. The journal emphasizes concepts, methods, techniques, approaches, and systems related to EIA theory and practice.
期刊最新文献
When differentiated carbon tax policy meets LBD of renewable energy and electrification of energy end-use: Policy implications of sectoral differentiation of carbon productivity and carbon emission Climate policy and carbon leakage: Evidence from the low-carbon city pilot program in China Reducing fertilizer and pesticide application through mandatory agri-environmental regulation: Insights from “Two Zero” policy in China Unveiling the heterogeneity of environmental impacts of China's coal washing plants by a configuration-specific life cycle assessment Moving in the landscape: Omnidirectional connectivity dynamics in China from 1985 to 2020
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1