Abstract
Abstract
Grassroots environmental justice (EJ) activists have had some success in changing the way their state governments address the racial dimensions of environmental inequality. This article examines the impact of grassroots EJ activism in Maryland and Pennsylvania on the states' environmental regulatory regimes and public policy-making cycles. These cases from the understudied Mid-Atlantic Region help to clarify the conditions under and process(es) by which EJ activism transformed some aspects of the states' environmental regulatory institutions, processes, and policies. This research uses qualitative analyses of original data collected from state created EJ advisory committee meeting minutes and annual reports, archives, interviews, newspaper articles, and published reports detailing EJ activism, as well as the development and implementation of EJ policies, institutions, initiatives, and programs in each state. These analyses discuss a few of the most important issues and show how by participating to demand more equitable outcomes in environmental processes and policy, citizens through grassroots EJ organizations influenced both the structure and outputs of their respective states' environmental regulatory regimes. The conclusion considers the broader implications of the findings.
Introduction
P
This is unfortunate because a substantial body of literature examines the relationship between political participation and its effects on public policy7,8,9,10 as well as who tends to participate in politics.11,12 In addition, this lacuna is particularly surprising given that researchers have also found considerable differences in marginalized and nonmarginalized groups' participation strategies, political access, and socialization.13,14 Other research points out that dominant political participation perspectives are limited in their ability to fully capture political participation among black populations and that political processes function differently around issues of race.15,16 Furthermore, most participation research, including studies on environmental justice (EJ) activism, focuses on how grassroots activism effects relevant political actors and/or the outcomes of specific disputes between particular communities and industries.17,18,19 However, less scholarly attention is paid to the relationship between participation, specifically grassroots activism by marginalized populations around the racial dimensions of inequality, and state-level government responsiveness with respect to institutional arrangements, public policy-making cycles, and programmatic outputs. This lack of research means that our understanding of how these factors are connected to each other and to participation, in general, as well as around specific issues that would be important to particular segments of the population and public policy, is incomplete.
The conspicuous absence of such focused research is also unfortunate because the existence, perceived or otherwise, of the racial dimensions of inequality has consequences for assessments about the character, functioning, and experience of American democracy, which can have implications for governance, as well as citizen participation. 20 Furthermore, the salience and nature of the issues characterized by racial disparities affect a significant number of Americans in important areas of their lives, mobilizing many, some for the first time, into political action. Understanding how that mobilization happens and its effects deepens our understanding of how democracy works across salient cleavages and issue domains, as well as the challenges of democracy and political participation, all of which are central concerns of political scientists.
This project attempts to address these gaps by adding depth and nuance to existing knowledge through (1) a focus on the political behavior of nonreligious, 21 predominantly minority grassroots community organizations (an active but understudied population) engaged in EJ activism22,23 and (2) attention to the impact of such activism on the political processes, institutions, and systems surrounding the issue of EJ. In particular, this study's central proposition is that states' EJ public policy, decision-making processes, and institutional responses are shaped by grassroots EJ activism and reflect its specific demands. This focus highlights the strengths and limitations of those demands, as well as identifies the conditions and circumstances in which these demands are likely to emerge and be more or less successful. Understanding the conditions and factors that shaped states' existing EJ policies, initiatives, and implementing institutions deepens our understanding of a variety political processes and issues of interest to political scientists. In addition, implicated in the development, content, and implementation of EJ policies are issues of power, inequality, and the challenges of democracy and political participation; all of which are of central concerns of political scientists.
This study proposes that EJ is an ideal lens through which to examine government responsiveness to grassroots activists' demands to address the racial dimensions of inequality because it is an issue characterized by predominantly minority participation explicitly concerned about the racial dimensions of inequality facilitated primarily through grassroots citizen groups. In addition, the EJM (Environmental Justice Movement) was a relatively recent movement driven by local activists who were successful in getting EJ on the national political agenda, which spawned a variety of state EJ plans, policies, and responses. 24 As a result, several state responses are available to scrutinize in multiple ways at multiple levels of analysis. Furthermore, this issue domain is distinct from most scholarship on participation, in general, as well as black participation more specifically because it focuses on (1) local-level community organizations besides the black church and larger national groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and (2) political participation/activism around the racial dimensions of an understudied and specific form of inequality. As such, it further contributes to existing knowledge by adding to the universe of groups and organizations involved in political socialization and participation, particularly among African Americans typically studied.
To assess these relationships, I combine measures of an array of grassroots EJ organizations' participation activities and articulated demands with analysis of actual government policy making and institutional responses. The broader project examines Mid-Atlantic organizations' EJ policy preferences and evaluations, as well as variations in race-conscious and race-neutral EJ approaches. However, in this article, I focus on the relationship(s) between grassroots EJ organizations' participation in EJ activism and their state's official responses and subsequent political behavior in two states, Maryland (MD) and Pennsylvania (PA). While there is insightful scholarship documenting the persistence of the racial dimensions of political and economic inequality, to my knowledge there has not been a comprehensive study that systematically examines the relationship between EJ policies, initiatives, implementation strategies, and grassroots EJ organizations' activism. Most analyses note existing policies' ineffectiveness and largely symbolic character but stop short of systematically examining the ways in which grassroots EJ activism impacted (1) the issue's development through the policy cycle and (2) state environmental regulatory regimes and decision-making processes. This article discusses a few of the most potent issues and illustrates the process through which EJ activism impacted relevant political institutions and procedures, as well as helped groups and citizens better navigate and deepen their political engagement around the issue of EJ and in general. The conclusion considers the broader implications of the findings.
Methods, Data, Research Questions, and Hypotheses
Methodological overview
This study examines the substance of both grassroots EJ activism and state approaches to EJ inclusive of EJ policies, resources, projects, initiatives, decision-making processes, and institutional arrangements. The study tests specifically whether there is an association between the demands and concerns articulated by grassroots EJ organizations and activists and the outcomes of the deliberative process used to develop states' approaches to EJ. The expected results were that government responses to grassroots EJ activism would be largely symbolic and not reflective of activists' articulated demands.
Because it is unlikely one method or perspective adequately addresses the questions this project asks, this study uses various methods, including document and content analysis and case study analysis. These methods were chosen to fill gaps in the literature which lacks comparative studies that (1) focus on underexamined phases of the policy process (particularly adjustment and reformulation phases) and (2) go beyond policy process analysis and examine tangible outcomes of the process on programmatic content, evaluation, and stakeholder behavior. The methods utilized also add to the body of empirical research aimed at informing policy-making. This study was designed in response to a review of methodologies adopted in similar EJ policy analysis studies and on consultation with practitioners in the EJ policy field.
Another aim of this study is to analyze the predictive ability of the findings to determine whether inferences can be made about similar policy processes, strategies, interpretations, and outcomes. Collaboration and participation, by their nature, create relational factors and thus limit mutually exclusive behaviors of variables. Also, a retrospective study cannot capture all the variables that influence policy outcome due to the time lapse between events and measurement of those events. For these reasons, most studies of this kind rely on measuring associations and/or frequencies of occurrence to draw generalizations and predictions.
Ultimately, policy deliberation, development, and implementation are complex processes, impacted by value systems, and a multitude of factors involving a multidisciplinary network of competing theories. Associations, generalizations, and predictions can be made, but reliance on a single hypothesis of cause and effect subject to direct empirical check is an oversimplification and does harm to the theory of political science.
This study performs extensive reviews of relevant state, city, federal and bureaucratic agency documents, transcripts, and publications. This project examines meeting minute transcripts and reports from 1999 to 2013. For MD, 56 meeting minute transcripts were examined and 14 annual reports. For PA, 40 meeting minute transcripts were analyzed and 10 25 annual reports. 26 In addition, extensive review of relevant state, city, federal and bureaucratic agency documents, transcripts, and publications is used to identify individuals, areas of EJ concern, and organizations engaged with the issue. Internet and newspaper searches of articles written between 1994 and 2013 were conducted and used to identify relevant EJ interests, issues, actors, organizations, and activities, as well as characterize levels of grassroots EJ activism in each state.
The primary research strategy for this study was a multiple, embedded case study analysis of EJ policy deliberation and development processes, implementation strategies, and approaches. The qualitative methods used were designed to trace and examine the historical development of states' EJ policies and to answer the following research question: Do states' official approaches to EJ reflect grassroots EJ activists' articulated preferences and demands?
Case study selection logic
This study used purposive nonrandom selection procedures to isolate cases with features of the EJ grassroots participation of theoretical interest. As such, this study focused primarily on MD and PA. These two states were selected for analysis because they fall in a region (Mid-Atlantic) that has been less frequently studied within EJ scholarship. As such, this project contributes to knowledge about EJ activism and policy-making in a region with significant EJ issues and activism, as well as important geographic, demographic, economic, and political differences relative to the more frequently referenced states and regions in EJ scholarship. Furthermore, MD and PA also have relatively extensive and well-documented EJ policy-making histories and outputs that facilitated the examination of the processes of interest to this study. In addition, within the Mid-Atlantic Region, these states have the most EJ organizations. 27
Data
The bulk of this study's data comes from content analysis of transcribed meeting minutes and annual reports from the State of Maryland's Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities (CEJSC) 28 and the State of Pennsylvania's Environmental Justice Advisory Board (EJAB). To determine the influence of grassroots EJ activism and government responses, I analyzed the meeting minutes of MD and PA EJ committees between 1999 and 2013. The transcripts document that said what during each meeting's public comment period. This information often provided insight into the participants' goals, expectations, and interpretations of the states' EJ policies, programs, activities, and effectiveness, as well as committee members' responses to participants' comments and requests. It also documents stakeholder complaints, suggestions, and other reactions to the work of the committee, including the policies and programs it produces. In addition, the committee members' discussions about the states' EJ goals, approaches, activities, decision-making processes, and recommendations are contained in these minutes and reports facilitating the identification of grassroots activism's influence.
Furthermore, in these documents, stakeholders' diversity of opinions, strength of conviction, calcification of positions, and polarization of opinions are observed. These aforementioned characteristics and attributes are gleaned from the substance of the discussions, that is, what things were discussed, what policies were enacted, and what the justifications for programs and initiatives were. In addition, I looked for points of consensus and whether or not discussions and activities/actions moved in the direction of the consensus. The committee meeting minute transcripts were examined for trends and relationships between data. Each meeting minutes' transcript was assigned certain characteristics, including “state” (PA or MD), “date,” and “attendance.” Then, each meeting minutes' transcript was coded. All of the statements made about one of these phrases were examined looking for commonalities, divergences, and trends.
The meeting minutes and reports were also coded across a variety of categories and characteristics. My interpretive coding scheme focused on the different actors involved in these debates, the positions they held, and the substance of their demands. The coding scheme was designed to answer the following subquestions: What were the political contexts under which EJ legislation was passed in the states? What was at stake in these debates? Who were the major actors involved in this debate? What role did the various actors play in determining the ultimate framing and programmatic direction of their states EJ activities? In coding these meeting minutes, this study examines the role of different strategies, languages, and justifications used by different actors involved in EJ policy deliberation and development and their related programmatic outputs. In addition to the facilitation of content analysis, this methodological approach allowed for quantitative analysis as well. Such analysis included (1) rates of participation across a variety of stakeholder categories 29 and (2) frequency of discussions regarding specific topics related to EJ and the corresponding decision-making process.
Supplemental data came from relevant state, city, federal and bureaucratic agency documents, transcripts, and publications, as well as Internet and newspaper articles written between 1994 and 2013. The survey data included in this study document surveyed stakeholders' preferences for, evaluations of, and responses to EJ policies, both in general and with respect to their specific state's approach. In addition, these data provide additional evidence of associations between grassroots participation and official responses.
Findings
Content analysis of MD and PA EJ advisory groups' meeting minutes, annual reports, as well as state documents and correspondence provides evidence that grassroots EJ activism effected the public policy-making and environmental decision-making processes related to EJ as well as the relevant political institutions; and it did so in ways that facilitated deeper, consistent, and more robust participation for impacted citizens and grassroots organizations representing them primarily through their early participation in the deliberation stage of the policy-making process. In this phase, grassroots EJ activist groups and individuals were able to shape their states' EJ definition in ways that required race-based determination of areas and populations of concern as well as prioritization for remediation and resources. As a result of these definitional orientations, each states' approach(es) to addressing existing environmental injustices and ensuring EJ in the future reflected some of grassroots EJ activists' demands.
The content analysis of the EJ committee meeting minutes and annual reports showed that the demands articulated by grassroots EJ organizations informed discussions were disseminated to relevant agencies and were reflected in state responses and their official approaches to EJ. The following section discusses in detail the specific political and institutional processes, resources, and structures grassroots EJ activism impacted.
Influence during public policy-making process
Agenda setting
EJ activists in predominantly low-income and minority communities served as an important catalyst for getting EJ onto their state's political agendas. Similar types of activism and claims were reported in PA and MD. Pennsylvania's 2001 EJ Strategic Plan and Report explains that the PA Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) EJ activities were, in part, a response to a lawsuit filed by Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL) against DEP alleging environmental racism.30,31 Similarly, MD's first EJ report confirms grassroots activism protesting disproportionate exposure and alleging environmental racism contributed to the initiation of the state's EJ activities. 32 This is significant because the MD and PA reports also indicate that these protests informed the states' understanding of EJ, in many respects defining it for the state, requiring it to engage with the issue's racial dimensions and shaping their EJ policies.
Issue definition
Issue definition is a critical factor influencing the development of EJ policies and approaches. 33 Grassroots activists' participation in the deliberation phases contributed to the states adopting definitions of EJ that retained the explicit inclusion of race as a category of difference requiring differentiated treatment. Several factors contribute to how states define EJ and what aspects of existing discourses surrounding the issue they embrace.
In general, states' deliberation processes vary with respect to how open or closed they are. Open deliberation processes are characterized by intentional attempts to engage and encourage diverse stakeholder participation through public forums. Both MD and PA used open deliberation processes to define EJ. The open deliberation approaches they utilized systematically provided stakeholders with opportunities to share their concerns and expectations. This informed and influenced the policy-making process and allowed policy-makers to get a sense of what grassroots activists and impacted residents understood the problems to be as well as their demands and expectations. This was a significant intervention because, to some degree, it disrupted power imbalances with respect to access to the environmental policy decision-making process. As a result, greater diversity of interests was injected into the discussion, expanding the scope and definition of the issue.
Furthermore, the public nature of the process enhanced transparency. These forums were transcribed creating public records and documenting stakeholder participation, interests, concerns, demands, and comments. Public comments contributed to and influenced the trajectory of the policy-making process and are reflected in the substance and goals of the subsequent policies and activities. In addition, the open deliberation process enhanced accountability because it produced a public record of stakeholder issues and expectations that made it more difficult to justify programmatic outputs and approaches to EJ that failed to reflect or include stakeholders expressed concerns and demands. Furthermore, it facilitated the identification of impacted communities, engaged residents, and community organizations concerned about EJ, some of which were later asked to consult or serve on the states' EJ committees.
Both states' EJ reports explicitly state that the recommendations and demands made during those meetings informed the policy-making process and were used to develop the states' EJ policies and incorporated into the work of the states' departments, agencies, and EJ committees. 34 In MD, several forums for public discussion on EJ were established. These included more than 75 open meetings over 2 years and 5 major statewide workshops. 35 Records of these meetings document citizens' concerns and expectations with respect to EJ. The “Community Perspectives” section of Maryland's 1999 EJ report provides a list of the citizen stakeholder comments from across the state during the public forums. These included ideas and opinions about what constituted EJ. The report includes a quotation from one of the public meetings reflecting community members' perspective of EJ.
If there is to be environmental justice….it will happen because government denies permits for activities in locations where there is an adverse impact on the minority or poor community….If polluters treated both rich and poor, majority and minority communities equally, public or private, there would be no need to try to correct or avoid environmental injustice it would be a self enforcing policy 36
In addition, a variety of perspectives on the substance of EJ were expressed to and considered by the Maryland Advisory Council on Environmental Justice (MACEJ). 37 These ranged from understandings of EJ as redress for environmental racism as reflected in a letter from the Coalition of Central Prince George's County Community Organizations soliciting “correction of the imbalance of environmental threats in our community” due to environmental racism 38 to a conception of EJ as the conditions in which the right to safe, healthy, productive, and sustainable environments can be freely exercised. 39 According to the report, these various perspectives on EJ assisted the MACEJ to arrive at its definition of EJ and informed its recommendations and approach to EJ. The report indicates, “… MACEJ, developed and has refined a definition of EJ based on input from various participants in meetings and workshops across the state of Maryland.” 40 The 2001 EJ report explains that the state's final EJ definition was the result of a deliberation process that relied on Maryland Department of Environment senior management with a bias in favor of public input. 41
Likewise, in PA, public participation early in the issue's deliberation process was sought, encouraged, and used to inform the state's conception of and approach to EJ. Seven community forums were held throughout the state, for the purpose of eliciting comments on the nature of environmental injustice in the state and suggestions on how to address them. The PA DEP's EJ report explains that a majority of the comments and suggestions voiced by community members attending the forums, in addition to written comments that were submitted, fell into the following general categories: Monitoring and Enforcement; Restoration of Historically Burdened Areas; and Community Health and DEP Ideology and Priorities. 42 The report indicates that several changes were made to the work group's recommendations to the DEP and Governor for addressing environmental injustice based on public comments: “During its April 2001 meeting, the EJWG devoted a great deal of its time to discussing the input that it received from the public….several changes were made to the document based on public comments.” 43
One change of note shows that an integral aspect of grassroots activists' conception of EJ is that it is a remedy for environmental racism and that it is fundamentally about eliminating existing “racial” disparities with respect to environmental inequality. PA's EJ report indicates there was a lengthy debate, sparked by public comments and recommendations, among the work group members about including coalfield communities in its definition of an area of EJ concern. The underlying substance of this debate dealt with whether to define EJ in terms of race or more broadly. The report states: “After lengthy debate, the work group could not reach consensus on including coalfield communities as a distinct entity addressed in the report.” 44 Ultimately, the members decided not to expand the definition of EJ but to use the racial lens to address their concern for an environmentally vulnerable population not characterized by racial disparity. This was done through a separate recommendation to ensure that the needs of minority communities were addressed in coalfield regions of the Commonwealth. In addition, addressing the concerns of coalfield communities was added to the recommended duties of the proposed Office of Environmental Advocate. The report states: “To ensure that the needs of low-income and minority communities were addressed in coalfield regions of the commonwealth, mining permits were retained in the list of Trigger Permits. In addition, addressing the concerns of coalfields communities was added to the recommended duties of the proposed Office of [the] Environmental Advocate.” 45
Meeting minutes recording these debates reflect statements from work group members who reference public comments and recommendations defining EJ in race-conscious terms and insisting the states' EJ efforts prioritize and focus on addressing racial disparities and the racial dimensions of environmental inequality. 46 These comments were used to justify excluding coalfield communities from its definition of an area of EJ concern. This debate highlights the ways in which a race-conscious conception of and approach to EJ were a reflection of grassroots stakeholders' conception of EJ that influenced that states' definition and approach. It also demonstrates its potential to obscure and potentially undermine other, related fights against environmental inequality. However, the PA case also shows that those fights are not inherently in opposition or mutually exclusive.
Official definitions
Through the deliberation process, EJ was defined. As discussed previously, issue definition is a critical factor influencing the development of states' EJ policies and approaches. PA and MD EJ definitions specifically identify race as a site of difference that should not bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental impacts. By indicating that disproportionate impacts were unacceptable, it is implied that (1) remedies are needed if disparities are found to exist and (2) vulnerable populations require enhanced protections.
Both MD and PA built on the EPA's definition in such ways. In MD, the statute establishing the CEJSC provides a definition of EJ. It reads as follows: “environmental justice” means equal protection from environmental and public health hazards for all people regardless of race, income, culture, and social status. 47 This definition explicitly lists race as a category to be provided equal protection from environmental and public health hazards. In addition to the definition found in this statute, the Maryland CEJSC further defines EJ as follows:
Additionally, environmental justice means that no group of people including racial, ethnic or socioeconomic groups should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, land-use planning and zoning, municipal and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local and municipal programs and policies. 48
This definition reflects a sensitivity to EJ activists' allegations that disparities were produced and maintained by both commercial and government activities and that both should be held responsible for remediation and prevented from contributing to current or future circumstances of disproportionate impact. It also implies that the existence of such disparities is undesirable. This is inferred from the use of the phrasing “no group should bear” when referring to disproportionate impacts. It falls short, however, of suggesting that disparities require remediation. Furthermore, the MD definition specifically notes that all citizens of the state should expect (1) to be protected from public health hazards and (2) to have access to the socioeconomic resources necessary to address concerns about their livelihood and health.
However, beyond the formal definition and despite its careful wording, Maryland's EJ reports and the CEJSC's meeting minutes show that the issue was defined in terms of racial disparity with the goal of eliminating it. This is reflected in a discussion between CEJSC members on July 28, 2011, regarding expanding the committee's EJ focus beyond racial disparities. During this meeting, one committee member suggested “diluting” the definition of EJ. Another committee member disagreed arguing that, “we should not dilute the definition too much because then it has no meaning.” She went on to say, “There is a lot at stake. If we define EJ too narrowly people pay for it with their lives; however, if we make it too broad, people miss the point. There are disparate impacts and we need to create a situation where everyone enjoys the same rights and benefits.” 49
EJ was defined similarly in PA. As in MD, PA adds language that ties EJ to the absence of racial disparities. Pennsylvania's 2001 Environmental Justice Report produced by DEP's Environmental Justice Work Group defined EJ as: “The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people with respect to the identification of environmental issues and the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental policies, regulations and laws. Fair treatment means that no group of people including, racial, ethnic or socioeconomic groups will bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental impacts resulting from industrial, municipal or commercial activities or from the execution of the federal, state, and local programs and policies. The attainment of environmental justice requires the Pennsylvania Department of Protection's proactive and ongoing review of environmental and administrative programs and policies, identification of inequities and work to ensure equal consideration and protection.” PA's definition uses slightly different wording than MD's with respect to the acceptability of disparities. The use of the stronger wording, “no group will bear,” suggests disparities will not be tolerated.
The way these states defined EJ as an issue reflects an understanding of EJ that sees race as a site of difference needing enhanced protection and consideration. In addition, they imply that the existence of such disparities is unacceptable and requires corrective action. It is important to note that while this finding in and of itself does not identify the causal direction of this relationship, the analysis above showed that in both PA and MD negatively impacted stakeholders were instrumental in helping define EJ for policy-makers. They were consulted early and consistently in the policy deliberation and design phases and articulated race-conscious conceptions of EJ. In these states, EJ activists' definitions of EJ informed and are reflected in the states' formal definitions.
Policies
The outcomes of the deliberation process described above informed and were incorporated into the policy making process, particularly in the policy development and implementation phases. In this study, explicit EJ policies represented states most important implementation tools. In addition to formalizing state's definitions of EJ and goals, they also lay out the parameters and which agencies of the state will pursue these goals. In so doing they provide agencies and state actors with guidelines and a framework within which to work.
Furthermore, they send messages to stakeholders about the states' level of commitment to EJ, available resources, and what to expect. In this study, both states produced explicit EJ policies to implement their EJ goals. 50 The adoption and content of these policies reflect grassroots activists' demands articulated in the deliberation phase. MD enacted an Environmental Justice Executive Order (EO) with a multiagency task force and passed additional legislation supportive of its EJ efforts. Although multiple agencies fall under the EO, the implementation of the policy is primarily led by the environmental agency.51,52 PA issued an administrative policy for it's environmental management agency (DEP).
In 2004, the Department of Environmental Protection (“PA DEP”) issued its Environmental Justice Public Participation Policy. Under the policy, if a proposed permit affects an area with either a 20% poverty or 30% minority population, enhanced public participation is required as part of the permitting procedure. 53 The policy seeks to prevent the concentration of negative environmental hazards in minority and low-income communities. Furthermore, the policy seeks to prevent the reproduction of racial disparities. The policy does not address existing racial disparities but does include a section entitled, “Improving the Condition of Environmentally Burdened Communities.” This section restates the Department's “intention to ensure that the needs of environmentally burdened communities are considered through a strategic planning process by including specific environmental and public health objectives, indicators, and actions in the planning process. This will allow the department to target some of its resources toward activities that improve the condition of environmentally burdened communities.”
MD's use of an EO facilitated widespread institutionalization of EJ principles throughout the state's bureaucracies and across its different levels and branches of government. In addition to its EO, MD passed House Joint Resolution 6.288. This resolution addressed EJ concerns within the Anne Arundel County. The resolution requires the Department of the Environment, in consultation with the MACEJ, to develop a plan to promote EJ in Anne Arundel County because of its high cancer mortality rate. Furthermore, the resolution states that additional industrial activity should not be allowed to proceed in the county and that no further environmental permits should be issued in designated areas of concern. This is significant because during the deliberation phase, grassroots activists and organizations were vocal and made this specific request. 54
Effects on relevant political institutions and environmental decision-making processes
EJ Departments/Offices
EJ activists in MD and PA also highlighted their existing environmental regulatory agencies' failures to address their needs and requested restructuring those institutions. As a result, both states created specific EJ departments within their environmental regulatory agencies, as well as EJ advisory committees. The departments included staff and resources to achieve the states' EJ goals. In addition, each state created EJ advisory committees to monitor the progress and oversee the work of their states' EJ departments.
In addition to EJ policies, MD and PA developed quasi-independent advocacy offices to implement their EJ plans. These offices have full-time employees who coordinate and direct an EJ agenda within the state government. MD and PA established their special departments for the specific purpose of implementing their EJ goals. 55 PA's EJ-related offices were established to comply with recommendations in these states' original EJ reports and strategic plans in consultation with grassroots activists and organizations.
These offices coordinate their respective state's EJ efforts and serve as the contact point for citizens. They also act as liaisons between citizens, the state's environmental management agencies, and government officials. In this capacity, if it is determined that a community may bear a disproportionate environmental burden due to a state environmental decision, the offices will serve as a liaison between the community and the relevant MDE personnel to seek a just resolution of the action (with additional staff and support). 56
In MD and PA, these agencies target their advocacy and outreach efforts toward constituents in areas they have designated as EJ communities, as well as other communities who believe they are at risk of an imminent environmental injustice. In this capacity, these offices reviewed existing and proposed legislation to determine their impacts on citizens in areas of EJ concern. These offices are also tasked with doing proactive public outreach to publicize services and to distribute contact information to communities at risk of bearing a disproportionate environmental burden or receiving a less than equitable share of environmental benefits. In addition, they review proposed permits, plans, and policies for consistency with the state's EJ EO and departmental goals.
Of note is the strong legislative focus of the MD Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ). This is due, in part, to the office's enacting legislation that dictates part of the OEJ's responsibilities is to review existing and pending legislation, as well as advise the DEP secretary with respect to new legislation. 57 The office's EJC also serves as the Maryland Department of the Environment's staff responsible for advising the Secretary on the development of further EJ guidance or policy. The EJC reviews MDE's regulations and guidance to ensure that they are compatible with EJ principles and submits a summary of the review to the Secretary. The EJC also proposes to the MDE Secretary further guidance and direction from the internal EJ network and other stakeholders, pertaining to further identification of environmental injustices and lack of public participation using socioeconomic and environmental indicators established by the department. The role and responsibilities of the EJC are directly connected to the goals, the state's EJ Strategic Plan in response to grassroots activists' requests. They reflect a race-conscious conception of EJ and focus on both remediation of existing racial disparities and the prevention of their reproduction.
Also of note is that the Pennsylvania Office of the Environmental Advocate (OEA) focuses on compliance, participation, and permitting related to EJ. The OEA was established in 2002 and is tasked with overseeing the implementation of the state's EJ strategic plan. According to the department's website, the regional environmental advocates are charged with ensuring EJ compliance in certain regions of PA. 58 PA's EJ report indicates the PA Office of Environmental Advocate (OEA) was intended to be a resource and a point of contact for addressing environmental concerns, and to foster community involvement by increasing community awareness.
PA's OEA also serves as a community liaison; it incorporates both reactive and proactive strategies. It has a prominent focus on the permitting process. In PA, permit applications are put through a screening process and applicants are required to do additional public outreach in areas identified as EJ areas. Thus, the major areas of state intervention occur through public participation processes in the state's permitting program. In addition, there is an emphasis on information distribution, outreach, and community participation. These efforts are consistent with the recommendations from the EJ Work Group and reflective of the specific demands articulated by the Citizens Concerned for Quality Living (CRQL), the grassroots EJ organization that successfully sued the state for environmental racism in Chester, PA. The OEA's activities focus on preventing the exacerbation and reproduction of racial disparities with respect to environmental hazards, increased enforcement, compliance, brownfield redevelopment, and enhanced public participation and trigger permitting.
EJ committees
As mentioned above, working in conjunction with and overseeing the work of each state's EJ departments are the states' EJ committees, the CEJSC and EJAB. The creation and duties of these committees altered the organizational structure of the states' existing institutions enlarging them, particularly the environmental regulatory agencies. In addition, it expanded the scope of their missions adding additional responsibilities, staff, and resources. They also facilitated the wide dissemination of EJ principles and goals throughout the entire government through their educational outreach and training activities targeting executive branch department heads. These committees consistently evaluated the impact of proposed initiatives, activities, policies, and regulations on areas and populations of EJ concern. In doing so, they impacted the environmental decision-making process, opening it up to citizens in new ways as well as imposing new requirements on relevant industries.
MD's CEJSC is a 20-member body that includes the following representatives: one member of the Senate of Maryland, appointed by the President of the Senate; one member of the House of Delegates, appointed by the Speaker of the House; the Secretary or the Secretary's designee; the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene or the Secretary's designee; the Secretary of Planning or the Secretary's designee; the Secretary of Business and Economic Development or the Secretary's designee; the Secretary of Housing and Community Development or the Secretary's designee; the Secretary of Transportation or the Secretary's designee; and 12 members appointed by the Governor who represent the following interests: affected communities concerned with EJ; business organizations; environmental organizations; health experts on EJ; local government; and the general public with interest or expertise in EJ. Of the 12 members appointed by the Governor, at least 2 members must represent affected communities concerned with EJ. 59
The CEJSC's composition is significant in that it included state legislators and state department heads whose departments' programs and practices are likely to impact minority populations in areas of EJ concerns. The inclusion of these actors facilitated the introduction, drafting, and critique of policy, making it easier for the committee's interests to get on the political agenda and to inform the legislature about EJ and particular EJ-impacted communities' specific issues. This structural mechanism facilitates the integration of information about and principles of EJ across a wide range of relevant state agencies/departments and influences their programming and practices. In addition, it facilitates elevating the demands of the EJ-impacted communities to the state level and into decision-makers' ears. Furthermore, the legislation's race-conscious approach is more consistently distributed leading to more consistent efforts to reduce and eliminate racial disparities with respect to environmental harms.
Because the CEJSC included members of the state's congress and bureaucratic department heads, they were better able and more likely to review existing and proposed policies and regulations with respect to how they impact citizens in areas of EJ concern. In addition, the inclusion and participation of these officials on the committees facilitated their ability to propose amendments to existing legislation as well as draft and propose new EJ-related policies and regulations. Both MD and PA EJ goals included interdepartmental EJ training for local officials and state employees. In MD, EJ training for elected officials and state employees was considered a top priority. The state's early EJ reports and its advisory committee's mission statement present EJ goals reflecting this priority, including the following: “Create awareness among public officials at all levels of government on the issue of EJ”; educate government employees and officials about EJ; “Increase the sensitivity of state and local officials to environmental justice issues; continued education of state regulators on EJ with special attention given to marginalized communities” (MDE EJ Report 2001. pg. 19). In addition, the state's EJ strategic plan includes the following participation goal: “educate residents and workers in affected communities through effective outreach, education, and risk communication” (pg. 35). 60 This was easier for them to do because their policies and advisory committees' composition were required to include elected officials and representatives from various departments.
The EJAB's bylaws also explicitly indicate that its composition must include citizens from low-income and minority communities. This is reflective of a specific stakeholder demand for inclusion on this board specifically as well as the state's more general goal of increasing participation from specific types of stakeholder populations. In MD, the committee's mandates and composition led to most of its activities and work revolving around reviewing, amending and drafting legislation, regulations, and policies. Between 2001 and 2012, the CEJSC reviewed and offered amendments to 37 pieces of legislation policies/regulations. In addition, they drafted for proposal, 11 pieces of legislation specific to EJ. These bills were introduced to the state's legislature by the state representatives serving on the CEJSC. This committee's legislative focus is reflected in its meeting minutes.
PA's EJAB also reviewed existing legislation and regulations; however, it focused more on DEP's policies and regulations, especially those related to permitting. This focus reflects the fact that the board was established administratively and functions at the discretion of DEP's Secretary. Unlike MD's CEJSC, the EJAB does not advise the Governor nor is it required to have members of the legislature as members. As a result, most of its work and recommendations focus on the operations and resources of the DEP. This has meant that the issue of EJ has lacked an institutional link to the legislative and executive branches of state government. This contributes to the issue's failure to sustain a presence on the state's political agenda and produce and introduce robust EJ-specific legislation.
Effects on implementation tools and strategies
Grassroots activists' participation also impacted the implementation of their respective states' EJ activities and initiatives. In response to community-based charges of environmental racism, discriminatory siting, and enforcement practices and lawsuits, changes were made to the environmental decision-making processes in both MD and PA. 61 EJ reports in each of these states indicated that grassroots activism prompted further investigation of specific claims of disproportionate siting, lower fining structures, and inconsistent enforcement. The records indicate that the findings of these investigations lead to some reforms. These reforms are primarily observed in the states' regulatory agencies targeting and prioritizing areas and populations of EJ concern, defined by race, for remediation and enforcement protection. More specifically, they include changes to permitting processes, the imposition of siting moratoriums, and enhanced participation requirements in environmentally stressed areas with high concentrations of populations of concern. In addition, they demanded increased opportunities for impacted populations in areas of concern to participate meaningfully in the relevant environmental decision-making processes.
The pro-EJ demands offered by the participating organizations most commonly observed in the committee meeting minutes and annual EJ reports reviewed in this study were for the elimination of racial disparities in the distribution of environmental burdens and benefits. This broad goal generally referred to the targeted cleanup of existing contaminated sites, closure, relocation or repurposing of polluting facilities, the prevention of additional siting in areas of EJ concern, and the development of green spaces for the purposes of equalizing environmental exposures across the states' population. 62 Both states responded to these demands by developing goals to eliminate such disparities and slightly altering their environmental decision-making processes to achieve this goal.
In this study, PA records reveal direct and aggressive goals for addressing the racial dimensions of environmental inequality. The state's 2001 EJ work group report reveals it recommended the DEP and OEJ to narrowly focus attention on prioritizing the elimination of the racial dimensions of inequality. The state's EJ report states, “This report was prepared with the intent to assist DEP to meet its existing environmental justice goals … to ensure the elimination of racial disparities in exposures to environmental hazards; rectify any injustices and improve the conditions of environmentally burdened minority and low-income communities.” 63 In addition, PA's EJ plan established a goal of requiring pollution producing industries seeking permission to site facilities in areas of EJ concern to pursue and achieve enhanced participation from potentially impacted residents. This goal was designed, in part, to indirectly disincentivize polluting industries from siting in areas of EJ concern and thereby reduce pollution exposure in general as well as the cumulative impacts and synergistic effects associated with multiple pollution producing facilities sited in close proximity to one another.
Similarly, in MD, the MACEJ report lists, “ensuring that environmental discrimination is eliminated, especially against minorities and people of low socioeconomic status” and “build on MDE's tracking of progress related to reducing environmental disparities.” 64 In addition, MD sought to reduce the number of polluting facilities in areas of EJ concern. To achieve this goal, it instituted a moratorium on siting of hazardous waste facilities and landfills in the Anne Arundel County because of the disproportionate number of facilities already there, high rates of cancer, and the area's racial composition. 65 In addition, the state's EJ plan indicates that Environmental Justice Communities of Concern (EJCOC) were identified and targeted for environmental reparations and remedies to compensate or restore environmental quality to comparable levels and should be afforded special protection from additional adverse impacts. 66 Relatedly, MD's EJ advisory council implemented and oversaw the state's Environmental Benefits Districts (EBDs). EBDs are identified, disadvantaged neighborhoods where state agency resources are focused. The EBDs are part of the work of this council and are connected to the state's aforementioned goal to prioritize and restore areas of EJ concern to comparable levels. Furthermore, Maryland's OEJ targeted areas of EJ concern for prioritized and increased enforcement and compliance measures. This allowed the OEJ to identify patterns of inconsistent and less frequent inspections, as well as longer periods of noncompliance and less penalty/fines in areas of EJ concern.
While less robust than MD, PA's environmental decision-making reform efforts are similar in kind. They also include prioritizing the needs and demands of citizens in areas of EJ concern and directing general as well as differentiated and specialized state resources to those populations and areas. These efforts are expressed in the state's EJ report as well as in the EJAB and Office of Environmental Advocate's annual reports to the Governor. They include: “ensuring that environmental cleanup programs are implemented in a manner that will overcome any past inequities within minority and low-income communities, and prevent future inequities,” “identify and promote action against environmental inequities in Pennsylvania,” “propose and develop regulations [programs and initiatives] positively affecting EJ communities,” “inform viable candidates on grant opportunities,” and “refer grant applicants to appropriate staff for technical guidance.” 67 In addition, the state's EJ report included a section on “Leveling the Playing Field,” which explained that one of the state's primary goals was to selectively elevate specific populations to a position equal to that of another population and devote “attention, energies, and resources to the environmental health and safety of minority and low income.”
The implementation tools and strategies developed and utilized by the MD and PA environmental regulatory agencies and other relevant state departments reflect the demands and expectations articulated by grassroots EJ organizations during the early phases of the policy-making cycle. They are characterized by efforts to target and prioritize populations and areas of EJ concern defined, in part, by race, a consistently articulated and non-negotiable stipulation central to participating activists' conception of EJ.
Discussion and Conclusions
Grassroots EJ activism in PA and MD influenced each state's responses to claims of environmental injustice and approaches to EJ. This is, in part, because grassroots EJ activists in these states were able to shape the issue's definition during the deliberation phase as well as participate in the development and implementation of related policies and decision-making procedures. In addition, EJ activist organizations in these states, through their participation in the early phases of the policy-making cycle, were able to get their concerns about the bureaucratic structure and priorities of their states' environmental regulatory regimes on the political agenda.
Furthermore, some of the most vocal activists from these organizations were invited to participate in the issue's policy design and implementation phases where they made recommendations for particularized benefits for populations and areas of EJ concern. In addition, they advocated for implementation strategies that targeted resources and enhanced protection for areas and populations of EJ concern as well as the prioritization of remediation efforts for those same areas.
There were also demands for structural and institutional changes reflective of vocal activists' conception of EJ and productive of their goals. This advocacy contributed to their states' environmental regulatory agencies creating specific EJ departments, staff, and resources that provided citizen groups and the populations they represented some tools to continue advocating for themselves around EJ, as well as the experience needed to understand and more deeply engage with relevant political systems, institutions, and processes. This helped them to continue to organize and advocate more fully for other related interests and structural changes. Moreover, some of the institutional and procedural changes led to the inclusion of specific initiatives that encouraged the development of and increased effectiveness of EJ-focused organizations.
These findings underline the importance of grassroots activism and civic participation for government responsiveness. They also provide further support for existing claims about the relationship between political participation and political learning and socialization. Furthermore, these findings confirm, at another level of government, in an understudied region, previous studies' claims that grassroots EJ activism influences government responses.68,69,70
This study's findings also provide insight into other studies' observations of variations in governments' EJ approaches.71,72,73,74 As such, this study deepens our understanding of when, where, and how such activism matters by identifying particular junctures in the policy-making cycle where grassroots EJ activism influenced decisions and outcomes. In addition, it identifies important aspects of the political environment and conditions under which the activism emerged and was successful in getting impacted populations' demands and interests reflected in government responses. Furthermore, it shows that the resulting procedural, programmatic, and policy outputs were shaped, in part, by the interaction between the existing regime's practice of open deliberation during the issue definition phase, the level of executive commitment to the dissemination of EJ throughout the government, the existence and active participation of organized opposition, and the substance of the pro-EJ demands.
Identifying these variables has implications for understanding the significance of variations in participation specifically surrounding EJ and its relationship to policy-making, but more generally as well. It also facilitates deeper analysis of the significance of the relationship(s) between EJ activism and the content and implementation of states' EJ approaches. In doing so, our understanding of government responsiveness to grassroots activism, particularly when facilitated by community-based organizations representing minority populations around an issue of inequality characterized by racial disparities, is enhanced. As a result, deeper comparative analysis of the variations in government responsiveness to specific types of issues, important to understudied populations can emerge. Such analysis is important and useful because these populations constitute a significant and growing portion of the American population. In addition, these organizations' and populations' ability to influence government responses in ways that reflect the substance of their demands is indicative of the health and nature of American democracy. An issue of central concern to political scientists and impacted citizens.
Furthermore, this study's analysis of EJ activism's influence illustrates the significance of the content and substance of the demands made. On one hand, the substance of the demands has ramifications for what the state can or is expected to do programmatically and procedurally effecting decision-making processes and power distribution. It can also impact institutions, effecting the size, scope, and resources available to states' environmental regulatory regimes.
On the other hand, demands reflecting preferences for narrow interpretations of EJ and targeted approaches could have consequences for coalition building and evaluation. As the PA case demonstrates, if the EJ activism demands are informed by a definition of EJ as a remedy for the racial dimensions of environmental inequality, it may garner governmental responses that focus on the distribution of environmental burdens instead of on the reduction or elimination of harmful extractive and consumption practices contributing to the production of the burdens themselves.
This study's findings demonstrate that grassroots EJ activism influenced how the issue was defined, EJ policy content and design, programmatic outputs, implementation strategies, and resource distribution. It also effected political institutions and processes in ways that encouraged, strengthened, and enhanced impacted populations' and organizations' subsequent behavior with respect to EJ and beyond. This study's examination of the effects of grassroots activism on MD and PA approaches to EJ provides further support for the conclusion that grassroots activism mattered and contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how, where, and in what ways such activism has mattered. In addition, this study's key findings reveal a relationship between the structure and characteristics of the existing policy-making processes and potential degree of influence grassroots activism may have on policy, programmatic outputs, and institutional structures that is important to consider but has not been highlighted in existing scholarship.
Research implications
As a result, the findings of these case studies point to several robust areas of future research. While the role of state policy-making seems central in the face of little federal action on this subject, the literature would benefit from increased attention to the significance of grassroots activism on responses to EJ at different scales of government. How are counties, cities, and townships either directly or indirectly addressing EJ? How would renewed federal attention to EJ help relieve environmental injustice in all states not just those with vocal grassroots activism?
In addition, replication of this study in other geographic regions to test the transportability of this study's theoretical components would be desirable. More specifically, research to support this study's finding that the impact of grassroots activism was facilitated by the relatively open deliberation processes in MD and PA during the issue definition phase of the policy-making cycle. 75
Relatedly, examining the substance and implementation of EJ policies and initiatives at different levels of government would also contribute to a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the significance of the issue's framing on its political trajectory and impact on stakeholder participation. Furthermore, applying this study's theoretical insights and methodology to other forms of inequality with racial dimensions would enhance our understanding of how this framing is linked to policy goals, development, and outputs.
Finally, this study's analysis of the impact of grassroots activism, which focused on locally situated citizen organizations, suggests potential fruitfulness in researching aspects of political socialization/learning and participation in marginalized populations through these groups. Opening up the potential supplements what is known from research that examines these issues in the context of large national groups such as the NAACP. In doing so, deepening what is known about them specifically and their relationship(s) to public policy, as well as how American democracy works across issue domains, populations, and other politically salient cleavages.