在新罕布什尔州,利用环境正义为水生恢复决策提供信息

IF 2.9 3区 社会学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Simone T. Chapman, C. Ashcraft, L. Hamilton, R. Congalton
{"title":"在新罕布什尔州,利用环境正义为水生恢复决策提供信息","authors":"Simone T. Chapman, C. Ashcraft, L. Hamilton, R. Congalton","doi":"10.1080/1523908X.2023.2229247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Aquatic resources support ecosystem functions and values, such as recreation, wildlife habitat, flood storage and nutrient reduction. Previous studies have found evidence that aquatic restoration programs can lead to systemic resource relocation and inequitable outcomes. This project advances the methodology to test for such inequality, applying geospatial methods within the U.S. state of New Hampshire to compare demographic profiles around sites with permitted losses of wetland functions and values, and separately, around sites where compensatory mitigation for such losses occurred. Contrary to expectations, we did not find permit sites tend to be located in areas with lower household incomes, lower education levels, or higher minority populations as compared to non-permit sites. We did find support for hypothesized patterns of lower minority populations, higher education levels, and higher household incomes around mitigation sites as compared to non-mitigation sites. Both permit and mitigation sites tend to be in areas with lower population densities, higher education levels, and higher percentages of white populations. Three different statistical approaches obtain results that diverge in their details but support a substantive conclusion: mitigation expenditures have gone disproportionately to more privileged locations. Our findings support integrating environmental justice considerations into implementation of compensatory mitigation policy.","PeriodicalId":15699,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning","volume":"10 1","pages":"586 - 597"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Informing aquatic restoration decisions using environmental justice in New Hampshire\",\"authors\":\"Simone T. Chapman, C. Ashcraft, L. Hamilton, R. Congalton\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1523908X.2023.2229247\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Aquatic resources support ecosystem functions and values, such as recreation, wildlife habitat, flood storage and nutrient reduction. Previous studies have found evidence that aquatic restoration programs can lead to systemic resource relocation and inequitable outcomes. This project advances the methodology to test for such inequality, applying geospatial methods within the U.S. state of New Hampshire to compare demographic profiles around sites with permitted losses of wetland functions and values, and separately, around sites where compensatory mitigation for such losses occurred. Contrary to expectations, we did not find permit sites tend to be located in areas with lower household incomes, lower education levels, or higher minority populations as compared to non-permit sites. We did find support for hypothesized patterns of lower minority populations, higher education levels, and higher household incomes around mitigation sites as compared to non-mitigation sites. Both permit and mitigation sites tend to be in areas with lower population densities, higher education levels, and higher percentages of white populations. Three different statistical approaches obtain results that diverge in their details but support a substantive conclusion: mitigation expenditures have gone disproportionately to more privileged locations. Our findings support integrating environmental justice considerations into implementation of compensatory mitigation policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15699,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"586 - 597\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2023.2229247\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2023.2229247","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

水生资源支持生态系统的功能和价值,如游憩、野生动物栖息地、蓄洪和营养减少。先前的研究发现,水生恢复计划可能导致系统性资源重新安置和不公平的结果。本项目改进了检验这种不平等的方法,在美国新罕布什尔州应用地理空间方法,比较了湿地功能和价值允许损失的地点周围的人口概况,并单独比较了对这种损失进行补偿性缓解的地点周围的人口概况。与预期相反,我们没有发现与非许可地点相比,许可地点往往位于家庭收入较低、教育水平较低或少数民族人口较多的地区。我们确实发现,与非缓解点相比,缓解点周围的少数民族人口较少、教育水平较高、家庭收入较高的假设模式得到了支持。许可和缓解地点往往位于人口密度较低、教育水平较高和白人人口百分比较高的地区。三种不同的统计方法得出的结果在细节上各不相同,但支持一个实质性结论:缓解支出不成比例地流向了更有特权的地区。我们的研究结果支持将环境正义考虑纳入补偿性缓解政策的实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Informing aquatic restoration decisions using environmental justice in New Hampshire
ABSTRACT Aquatic resources support ecosystem functions and values, such as recreation, wildlife habitat, flood storage and nutrient reduction. Previous studies have found evidence that aquatic restoration programs can lead to systemic resource relocation and inequitable outcomes. This project advances the methodology to test for such inequality, applying geospatial methods within the U.S. state of New Hampshire to compare demographic profiles around sites with permitted losses of wetland functions and values, and separately, around sites where compensatory mitigation for such losses occurred. Contrary to expectations, we did not find permit sites tend to be located in areas with lower household incomes, lower education levels, or higher minority populations as compared to non-permit sites. We did find support for hypothesized patterns of lower minority populations, higher education levels, and higher household incomes around mitigation sites as compared to non-mitigation sites. Both permit and mitigation sites tend to be in areas with lower population densities, higher education levels, and higher percentages of white populations. Three different statistical approaches obtain results that diverge in their details but support a substantive conclusion: mitigation expenditures have gone disproportionately to more privileged locations. Our findings support integrating environmental justice considerations into implementation of compensatory mitigation policy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
46
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信