Environmental Injustice and Urban Food Deserts

Material Information

Environmental Injustice and Urban Food Deserts An Evaluation of Supermarket Accessibility in Tampa Bay, Florida
Reynolds, Thomas E, Jr
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 online resource (202 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Interdisciplinary Ecology
Committee Chair:
Olexa, Michael T
Committee Members:
Flocks, Joan D
Adams, Damian
Graduation Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Census tracts ( jstor )
Deserts ( jstor )
Farming communities ( jstor )
Food ( jstor )
Foodways ( jstor )
Low socioeconomic status ( jstor )
Neighborhoods ( jstor )
Obesity ( jstor )
Socioeconomic status ( jstor )
Supermarkets ( jstor )
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
access -- desert -- environmental -- food -- gis -- justice
City of Tampa ( local )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, Ph.D.


The field of environmental justice is concerned with the equitable treatment of communities and individuals with respect to the environments in which they live, work, and play.  A sophisticated body of evidence has been developed which illustrates that non-White ethnicity and low socioeconomic status (SES) are strongly associated with adverse environmental outcomes.  Historically, environmental justice research has been focused on race- and class-based disparities in the distribution of environmental hazards.  In recent years, environmental justice researchers have begun to focus on new populations and problems, particularly in the area of access to community-level environmental benefits.  One of the most important of these benefits is healthy food,which is essential to life itself and a critical component of any just and sustainable community.  A consensus is emerging that low SES and racial minority neighborhoods are often home to food deserts - areas with limited access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate food options.  Previous research has demonstrated that food deserts are associated with disproportionately high rates of diet-related disease, particularly obesity.  This study was designed to investigate the main research hypotheses that (1) the percentage of Black residents in a neighborhood is associated with supermarket access, (2) low neighborhood SES is associated with supermarket access, and (3) food deserts exist in predominantly Black and low SES neighborhoods.  Tampa Bay, Florida, an average mid-sized metropolitan area in terms of size, population, density, demographics, land use patterns, and prevalence of diet-related disease was selected as the location for a representative case study.  The methods and results from this study can be applied to other similarly situated urban areas. Full service supermarkets were used as a proxy for healthy food.  Geographic information system (GIS) technology and statistical techniques were used to examine the distribution of supermarket access by race and SES.  Proximity to the nearest supermarket was used to gauge each neighborhood’s level of access.  The results ofthe analysis suggest a clear negative association between the percentage of Black residents in a neighborhood and supermarket access.  In contrast, it is less clear whether low neighborhood SES is associated with supermarket access.  The bulk of the evidence indicates an inverse relationship, meaning that low SES neighborhoods actually have slightly better access on average than the general population.  However, low SES individuals and communities that do suffer from poor supermarket access are probably less able to cope because of socioeconomic deprivation (e.g. higher rates of dependency on public/alternative forms of transportation, lower median income, less political/social capital).  A total of forty-two potential food deserts were identified in low SES and Predominantly Black neighborhoods. These findings are compatible with the results of previous studies showing that local food environments are unsupportive of supermarket access in vulnerable subpopulations.  All primary objectives of this investigation were accomplished, including (1) analysis of the current state of environmental justice research, (2) development of a comprehensive GIS database mapping supermarket locations against demographic neighborhood characteristics, (3) empirical testing of race-based and/or class-based disparities in food access are present in the study area, (4) formulation of policy recommendations for corrective action, and (5) identification of limitations and avenues for future research.  Additional research is needed to determine the full scope of the problem, to further distinguish areas with food access issues, and to better establish whether a direct causal relationship exists between race, SES, and food deserts.  However, the insight gleaned from this study elicits further evidence of the food access problems facing this nation.  For researchers and policy makers, the challenge ahead is to reinvent food systems in ways that encourage healthy eating patterns across society, regardless of race and socioeconomic status.  The complex set of problems involved with this task can only be overcome through a concentrated, holistic, and multifaceted effort to improve access to healthy food in vulnerable communities.  Integrated approaches that address individual, cultural, social, environmental, economic, and political barriers to healthy eating are critical for success, and should expressly include environmental and social justice goals.  With strategic interventions based in equality, increased access to healthy food options can help slow the inertia of diet-driven disease in low SES neighborhoods and communities of color, and promote healthy eating habits for all. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Adviser: Olexa, Michael T.
Electronic Access:
Statement of Responsibility:
by Thomas E Reynolds.

Record Information

Source Institution:
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Embargo Date:
Resource Identifier:
888063731 ( OCLC )
LD1780 2013 ( lcc )


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




2013 Thomas Eric Reynolds Jr. 2


To Mom and Dad, without whom this incredible journey would have been unimaginable. 3


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank everyone who supported me throughout the long and sometimes arduous process of writing this dissertation beginning with the members of supervisory committee. Heartfelt thanks go to my committee chair, Professor Michael Olexa, under whose guidance I have developed as a student, a teacher, a researcher and a human being. Professor Olexa was integral to every aspect of this endeavor, offering constant support and endless patience for which I will remain forever indebted. Professor Joan Flocks deserves much of the credit for my progression as a scholar and my choice of research interests. She introduced me to the concepts involved in this dissertation, and her first hand expertise in the subject ar ea was integral to my understanding of them. She continues to inspire me to ask the difficult questions and to be an advocate for social justice. Professor Damian Adams graciously agreed to serve on my committee after several previous members left UF for tenured positions at other institutions. He is a prolific researcher, an astute and gifted advisor, an obvious candidate for numerous faculty mentor awards, and a role model whose career I can only aspire to emulate. Former committee member Professor Dawn Jourdan, now of the University of Oklahoma, has helped me in too many ways to count. I am obliged to all of the other faculty and staff who graciously answered my endless list of questions and assisted me along the way. Special praise goes to School of Natural Resources and Environment Graduate Coordinator Karen Bray, who somehow singlehandedly keeps each one of us going in the right direction. I am lucky to have met an exceptional group fellow graduate students with whom I was fortunate enough to share these experiences. The friendship, time, editorial advice, and thoughtful critique of GregToth and Alex Weppelman are greatly appreciated and 4


undoubtedly added to the quality of the final product. I am also beholden to Rob Purdue, whose unique insight, wit, and regal air contributed to a significant degree of philosophical enlightenment. Most important, I owe a debt of gratitude to my family. In particular, my mother has been my biggest fan. I sincerely hope she is proud and that this project fo cused on issues of fairness and equality honors the memory of my father, who I lost along the way. Nobody has been more crucial to this effort than my beautiful and understanding partner, Sara, whose unwavering love and support was, at times, the differ ence between sanity and madness. Lastly, I am eternally grateful for my canine companion Daisy, who provided comic relief when I needed it the most. 5


TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 14 Defining Environmental Justice ............................................................................... 15 The Environment: Where We Live, Work, and Play ................................................ 19 Conceptualizing Justice .......................................................................................... 21 Historical Overview of the Environmental Justice Movement .................................. 25 Summary of Relevant Issues .................................................................................. 29 Research Objectives and Questions ....................................................................... 32 Relevance of this Work ........................................................................................... 33 Outline of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 34 2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................... 36 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 36 Foundational Researc h ........................................................................................... 37 Waste Sites ...................................................................................................... 39 Unequal Enforcement of the Law ..................................................................... 45 Farmworkers and Pesticide Exposure .............................................................. 47 Native Americans ............................................................................................. 48 The Built Environm ent ............................................................................................. 51 Air Pollution ...................................................................................................... 52 Housing ............................................................................................................ 54 Parks and Green Space ................................................................................... 57 Transportation .................................................................................................. 59 Emerging Issues ..................................................................................................... 60 Energy Policy and Climate Change .................................................................. 61 Remaining Questions ....................................................................................... 64 3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND ACCE SS TO HEALTHY FOOD OPTIONS ..... 66 Chapter Outline ....................................................................................................... 66 Access to Healthy Food Options: More than Just Calories ..................................... 66 6


Food Deserts: Race and Class Disparities in Access to Healthy Food Options ...... 71 Formation of Food Deserts ..................................................................................... 75 4 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................. 81 Data and Methods .................................................................................................. 81 Identifying the Study Area ....................................................................................... 83 Defining Neighborhoods ......................................................................................... 85 Characterizing the Food Environment .................................................................... 86 5 ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 9 4 Subpopulations of Concern ..................................................................................... 94 Measuring Accessibility ........................................................................................... 99 Identifying Potential Food Deserts ........................................................................ 102 6 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 127 Resu lts .................................................................................................................. 127 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 129 Policy Recommendations ..................................................................................... 132 Limitations and Potential Research Directions ...................................................... 139 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 143 APPENDIX A PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ................................................... 147 B EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 ................................................................................. 150 C MODEL FOOD ACCESS SURVEY ...................................................................... 157 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 160 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 202 7


LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Dietary Recommendations ................................................................................... 35 4 1 Study Area Demographics ................................................................................... 89 4 2 Retail Food Sales by Type of Outlet .................................................................... 91 4 3 Number of Stores by Supermarket Chain ............................................................ 92 5 1 Population Descriptive Statistics from SES Deprivation Index ........................... 113 5 2 Accessibility by Neighborhood Type .................................................................. 116 5 3 SES Characteristics of All Neighborhoods vs Potential Food Deserts .............. 119 5 4 High Potential Food Deserts by Neighborhood .................................................. 120 5 5 Very High Potential Food Deserts by Neighborhood .......................................... 121 5 6 Tests of Distribution ........................................................................................... 122 5 7 Non Parametric Correlation ............................................................................... 123 5 8 Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test of Means ................................................................... 124 5 9 Oases and Enclaves .......................................................................................... 126 6 1 Policy Recommendations ................................................................................... 146 8


LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Location of Study Area within the Study Area .................................................... 90 4 2 Supermarket Locations ....................................................................................... 93 5 1 SES by Neighborhood ...................................................................................... 110 5 2 Residential SES Clustering ............................................................................... 111 5 3 Percentage of Black Residents by Neighborhood ............................................ 112 5 4 Supermarket Density ........................................................................................ 114 5 5 Proximity to Closest Supermarket .................................................................... 115 5 6 SES, Black Neighborhoods, and Supermarket Access .................................... 117 5 7 Potential Food Deserts ..................................................................................... 118 5 8 Oases & Enclaves ............................................................................................ 125 9


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Regis try BMI Body Mass Index EJ Environmental Justice FDA Food and Drug Administration FGDL Florida Geographic Data Library GIS Geographic Information System HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NEJAC National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee NIMBY Not In My Back Yard SES Socioeconomic Status SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program EO 12898 Executive Order 12,898 TRI Toxic Release Inventory TSDF Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and/or Disposal Facility UA Urbanized Area UCC United Church of Christ UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protecti on Agency USGAO United States General Accounting Office USHHS United States Department of Health and Human Services WHO World Health Organization WIC Women, Infants, and Children Food and Nutritional Service 10


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to t he Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE AND URBAN FOOD DESERTS: AN EVALUATION OF SUPERMARKET ACCESSIBILITY IN TAMPA BAY FLORI DA By Thomas Eric Reynolds Jr. August 2013 Chair: Michael Olexa Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology The field of environmental justice is concerned with the equitable treatment of communities and individuals with respect to the environment s in which they live, work, and play A sophisticated body of evidence has been developed which illustrates that nonWhite ethnicity and low socioeconomic status (SES) are strongly associated with adverse environmental outcomes. Historically, environmental justice research has been heavily focused on raceand class based disparities in the distribution of environmental hazards. In recent years, environmental justice researchers have begun to focus on new populations and problems, particularly in the area of access to community level environmental benefits. One of the most important of these benefits is healthy food, which is essential to life itself and a critical component of any just and sustainable community. A consensus is now emerging that low SES and racial minority neighborhoods are often home to food deserts areas with limited access to healthy affordable, and culturally appropriate food options Previous research has demonstrated that food deserts are associated with disproportionately high rates of diet related disease, 11


particularly obesity. This study was designed to investigate the main research hypotheses that (1) the percentage of Black residents in a neighborhood is associated with supermarket access, (2) low neighborhood SES is assoc iated with supermarket access, and (3) food deserts exist in predominantly Black and low SES neighborhoods. Tampa Bay, Florida, an average mid sized metropolitan area in terms of size, population, density, demographics, land use patterns, and prevalence o f diet related disease was selected as the location for a representative case study. The methods and results from this study can be applied to other similarly situated urban areas. Full service supermarkets were used as a proxy for healthy food. Geographic information system ( GIS ) technology and statistical techniques were used to examine the distribution of supermarket access by race and SES. P roximity to the nearest supermarket was used to gauge each neighborhoods level of access. T he results of the analysis suggest a clear negative association between the percentage of Black residents in a neighborhood and supermarket access. In contrast, it is less clear w hether low neighborhood SES is associated with supermarket access. The bulk of the evidence i ndicates an inverse relationship, meaning that low SES n eighborhoods actually have slightly better access on average than the general population However, low SES individuals and communities that do suffer from poor access are probably less able to cope b ecause of socioeconomic deprivation (e.g. higher rates of dependency on public/alternative forms of transportation, lower median income, less political/social capital ) A total of forty two potential food deserts were identified in low SES and Predominantly Black neighborhoods representing more than ten percent of the total population These findings are compatible with the results of previous studies showing 12


that local food environments are unsupportive of supermarket access i n vulnerable subpopulations. All primary objectives of this investigation were accomplished, including (1) analysis of the current state of environmental justice research, (2) development of a comprehensive GIS database mapping supermarket locations agai nst demographic neighborhood characteristics, (3) empirical testing of racebased and/or class based disparities in food access are present in the study area, (4) formulation of policy recommendations for corrective action, and (5) identification of limitations and avenues for future research. A dditional research is needed to determine the full scope of the problem, to further distinguish areas with food access issues, and to better establish whether a direct causal relationship exists between race, SES a nd food deserts. However the insight gleaned from this study elicits further evidence of the food access problems facing this nation. For researchers and policy makers, the challenge ahead is to reinvent food systems in ways that encourage healthy eati ng patterns across society, regardless of race and socioeconomic status. The complex set of problems involved with this task can only be overcome through a concentrated, holistic, and multifaceted effort to improve access to healthy food in vulnerable com munities. Integrated approaches that address individual, cultural, social, environmental, economic, and political barriers to healthy eating are critical for success, and should expressly include environmental and social justice goals. With strategic int erventions based in equality, increased access to healthy food options can help slow the inertia of diet driven disease in low SES neighborhoods and communities of color, and promote healthy eating habits for all. 13


CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND Over the past three decades, scholarly interest in environmental justice has intensified greatly, and the topic has become a major part of the environmental dialogue in the United States and internationally. In the process, researchers have amassed a substantial body of evidence in support of the hypothesis that environmental burdens and benefits are not distributed equitably across race and socioeconomic class. Race and socioeconomic status (SES) have proven to be powerful predictors of many environmental hazards, including the distribution of air pollution, the location of municipal solid waste facilities, the location of abandoned toxic waste sites, toxic fish consumption, and lead poisoning in children. (Bullard, 1993, p. 320) Likewise, evidence indicates that environmental benefits and services, including access to transportation systems, green space, and safe, affordable housing, a ccrue toward whiter, wealthier communities, often leaving resi dents of poor neighborhoods and communities of color isolate d from the environmental amenities that are readily available to other populations (Bullard, 1993). Recently, the topic of access to healthy food has emerged in the environmental justice literature. Numerous studies have concluded that low SES and racial minority neighborhoods are home to food deserts areas characterized by poor access to healthy and affordable food which may contribute to social and spatial disparities in diet and diet related health out comes ( Beaulac et al. (2009, 1). C onvenience stores, fast food restaurants, and similar outlets are the dominant sources of nutrition in food desert neighborhoods (Moore & Diez Roux, 2006; Morland, Wing, Diez Roux, & Poole, 2002). These types of establishments invariably offer fewer healthy options than do supermarkets, chain stores, neighborhood groceries, or farmers markets. Despite 14


safety net programs intended to increase the purchasing power of low income individuals (e.g. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ; Women, Infants, and Children Food and Nutritional Service) healthy food options can remain inaccessible to residents of food desert communities because of geographic isolation and other manifestations of structural racism, including residential segregation exclusi onary transportation planning, and economic inequality ( Gottlieb, 2009) This trend is particularly problematic given that lack of access to community level environmental resources is correlated with the trends of diet related disease (e.g. obesity, diabetes) facing t he nation ( Pearce, Witten, Hiscock, Blakely, 2007). Moreover, adverse health outcomes related to obesogenic environments have taken an alarmingly disproportionate toll on poor and minority communities (see Morland & Evenson, 2009; Papas et al. 2007; Saele ns et al., 2012), making the topic of food deserts ripe for further environmental justice research.1 Despite the growing consensus of a correlation between food deserts and race/SES, there remains a relative dearth of research on food accessibility for the majority of metropolitan areas in the US, and more empirical studies are needed in other cities (Kwate, 2008, p. 36). Defining Environmental Justice In the simplest terms, environmental justice (EJ) is the notion that all members of society, regardless race and socioeconomic class, should share environment burdens and benefits equitably. In practice, how ever, the term conveys an extraordinarily complex set of social, political, economic, ethical, and scientific issues in only two words (ALA, 2000, p. 372), and holds divergent connotations for the multitude of 1 The term obesogenic relates to micro and macro scale f actors (e.g. physical, economic, political and socio cultural) that support or encourage obesity (Kirk, Penney, & McHugh, 2010). 15


disciplines through which it is studied .2 I nvestigations of environmental justice are distinctly place based (Pulido, 1996), and an easily generalizable definition has not materialized. A number of commentators have offered specific environmental justice frameworks (see Capek, 1993; MorelloFrosch Pastor, Porras, & Sadd, 2002; Pellow, 2000, 2004). It is unlikely that any of one of these represents a conclusive theoretical interpretation of environmental justice. Taylor (2000, p. 514), however, argues that taken as whole, the literature illustrat es a unique and nuanced master frame which is used to mobilize activists who want to link racism, injustice, and environmentalism in one frame. Sze and London (2008) reaffirm the notion of environmental justice as a distinct framework, but are careful to note that it is highly dynamic and continually evolving. Adding some confusion, the term environmental justice also refers to a variety of interrelated but highly localized social movements aimed at improving environmental conditions in disadvantaged communities Forming from a n amalgamation of existing populist movements (e.g. civil rights, antitoxics, Native American, and Farmworker movements), environmental justice has become a discernible social movement in its own right (Cole & Foster, 2001). T he theoretical construction of environmental justice has been influenced and shaped by such organizations (Capek, 1993). Schlossberg (2004, p. 517) argues that existence of different notions of justice in the movement, simultaneously, demonstrates the plausibility of a plural yet unified theory and practice of justice. Yet, t he fluid and often ephemeral nature of individual environmental justice organizations complicate s efforts to develop a homogenous definition. 2 These include public health, political science, environmental law and policy, urban planning, sociology, demography, and geography. 16


Unsurprisingly, given the complexity of the term and the sheer diversity of subject matter upon which it touches, mutual understanding of environmental justice remains difficult to pin down, and no singular correct interpretation has emerg ed (Sze & London, 2008). Yet, it is critical to delineate a working definition for purposes of this dissertation. In that pursuit, it is perhaps best to begin with some foundational terminology (see Mohai, Pellow & Roberts, 2009 for a discussion on the history and development of environmental justice) First, the term environmental racism was conceived by Benjamin Chavis, former head of the United Church of Christs Comm ission on Racial Justice and later CEO of the NAACP (Mohai & Bryant, 1992). Chavis d escribed environmental racism as racial discrimination in environmental policymaking, the enforcement of regulations and laws, the deliberate targeting of communities of color for toxic waste facilities, the official sanctioning of the lifethreat ening presence of poisons and pollutants in our communities, and the history of excluding people of color from leadership of the ecology movements. (Bullard, 1990, p. 278) Bryant (1995) later characterized environmental racism as an extension of instituti onal racism within the environmental context, while Foreman (1998) argues that the term was coined to be intentionally inflammatory because it expressly links the whiteness of mainstream environmental policy with civil rights abuses. The exclusive focus on race and wide usage of environmental racism was relatively short lived however Citing the powerful association between race and social class, researchers began to explore the potential of socioeconomic status as a co predictor of inequitable environmental outcomes (Bullard & Wright, 1992; Downey, 1998; Mohai & Bryant, 1992). This schism gave rise to the less politically charged, but moreinclusive label of environmental equity. Pellow, Weinberg, & Schnaiberg (2001), for example, argue that 17


the effects of race and socioeconomic status on the environment are so systematically intertwined that they are impossible to truly separate empirically Mohai & Saha (2006 ), in noting that evidence of environmental disparity has been found along dimensio ns of class as well as race, also caution against dismissing socioeconomic inquiry in favor of a raceonly framework. While some commentators continue argue that racism as a social construct is a separate entity which should be theoretically isolated from class (Blais, 1996; Clark, Lab, & Stoddard, 1996; Pulido, 1996), others counter that it is impossible to ostensibly differentiate the effects of race from class because of the strong interaction between the two factors (Downey & Hawkins, 2008). By the early 1990s, academics and activists alike began to adopt a third designation environmental justice which is broader in scope than either environmental racism or environmental equity. Amongst the three terms, environmental justice is uniquely grounded in the belief that everyone is entitled to a sustainable, not simply equal, level of environmental protection.3 Professor Bryant (1995, p. 6), one of the predominant early voices in environmental justice scholarship, defines the term as those cultural norms and values, rules, regulations, behaviors, policies, and decisions (that) support sustainable communities, where people can interact with confidence that their environment is safe, nurturing, and productive. The US Environmental Protection Agencys d efinition is equivalently steeped in the language of sustainability : the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of env ironmental laws, regulations, and policiesIt will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the 3 The United Nations defines sustainability as being able to meet the needs of the present without endangering the wellbeing of future generations (see United Nations General Assembly, 1987). 18


decisionmaking process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, a nd work (USEPA, 2012) Critics have alleged that EPAs definition is so over broad it threatens to water down the very essence of environmental justice as a distinctly minority problem and was intentionally diluted to make the issue more palatable for pol icymakers and politicians who are usually reticent to engage in discussions framed in terms of racism (Foreman, 1998). On the other hand, attempts to refine a more exclusive definition of environmental justice risk missing substantive distinctions amongst legitimate cases of environmental injustice (see Pulido, 1996). Thus, generalized definitions of the term are difficult to defend against allegations of being either too i nclusive or too restrictive, leading some to argue that the task of establishing a universal ly accepted definition is not only unnecessary, but likely impossible (Downey & Hawkins, 2008). The Environment: Where We Live, Work, and Play Populations that are socioeconomically and politically alienated from the rest of society experience the environment differently from socalled mainstream environmentalists, who are predominantly White and middleclass ( Kalof, Dietz, Guagnano, & Stern, 2002; Pulido & Pena, 1998). Mainstream environmentalism was a genuine social movement in the United States before the outbreak of the Civil War (Brulle, 2000). In the beginning of the twentieth century, visionaries like John Muir (founder of the Sierra Club), Gifford Pinchot (first Chief of the US Forest Service), and President Theodore Roos evelt waged a protracted political battle to have the nations great natural areas set aside (Brulle, 2000). Enormous tracts of land were conserved by the Federal government and the states in perpetuity for use by future generations, and the United States became the worldwide model for conservation (Brulle, 2000). 19


As mainstream i deal s evolved to view the environment as distant and pristine, human influence came to be seen as intrinsically separate and harmful (Devall & Sessions, 2007). People were cogni tively and physically removed from the natural environment, and concerns for preservation trumped calls for social justice. As notions of equity and equality lost out to environmental protectionism, people of color and the poor were turned off by the lack of concern for the environmental issues that affected them directly. Over time, mainstream environmentalism became ever more technocratic and entrenched in regulatory institutions, further distancing poor and minority populations. Participation by those communities in environment al matters was further encumbered by the abstruse culture of topdown regulation. As Gauna (1995, p. 27) notes, (a) scientific framework of risk analysis is ill suited to address social justice issues. Inspired by women of color and focused principally on local issues (Taylor, 1997) t he environmental justice movement developed in direct reaction to the lack of attention paid by mainstream environmentalism to issues of race and class (Sze & London, 2008). In the process, EJ scholars and activists advanced their own interpretation of what constitutes the environment. In contrast to mainstream environmentalism, environmental justice takes a more holistic approach, arguing that that there is only one interconnected environment which consists of both natural spaces and humancreated components (Hornberg & Pauli, 2007). The ideals of ecological sustainability are enshrined in both traditions, but environmental justice more explicitly acknowledg es the importance of the built environment; where people live, work, and play (Novotny, 2000). This admittedly more anthropogenic definition of the environment also asserts that 20


humans are an integral part of the systems that provide the products and serv ices (e.g. clean air and water, climate control, safe housing, healthy food, etc) on which they depend to survive (see Alberti et al., 2003; Hooke 2000) More importantly, it recognizes that tradeoffs between environmental protection and social equity ar e sometimes unavoidable, and should be part of the broader environmental conversation (Pellow et al. 2001). Conceptualizing Justice It would be difficult to have an informed discussion about environmental justice without delving, at least briefly, into what justice means Theoretical approaches to environmental justice have included at least four broad concepts of justice: (1) the equitable distribution of environmental burdens and benefits, (2) meaningful input for everyone in the processes and systems that dictate distribution, (3) recognition of communities that are affected by environmental injustice, and (4) corrective action where necessary. As is the case with the analysis of Tampa Bay food deserts presented later in this paper, the term environm ental justice most often refers to the distributive qualities of justice (i.e. the spatial or geographic distribution of environmental burdens, benefits, and responsibilities). The hypotheses posed by distributive research generally intimate questions of who gets what, how much do they get, and where it is located. Basically all such discussions draw directly or indirectly upon Rawls (1971) A Theory of Justice. Ever the anti utilitarian, Rawls (1971) posits that justice, in general, requires that all individuals be entitled to an equitable degree of rights and liberties (e.g. the right to access environmental benefits and services or the liberty to be free from environmental hazards). This egalitarian sentiment is a foundational tenet of the environm ental justice movement, and can refer to the distribution of toxic waste sites, 21


air pollution, park land, healthy food outlets, or any number of other environmental burdens and benefits. A large proportion of the early environmental justice literature co nsists of quantitative investigations of racial and class based disparities in the distribution of environmental hazards (see USGAO, 1983; UCC, 1987). Distributional injustice in the environmental context has historically been gauged by the location or pr esence/absence of hazards, and the unintended consequences they produce. This model of research is intended to measure disparity in the distribution of exposure risk (see MorelloFrosch et al., 2001) and social impacts (see Downey, 2007) associated with e nvironmental hazards. Proximity is regularly used as a surrogate for risk of exposure, although no causal link between the distribution of hazards and health endpoints has been definitively established (Kawachi, Daniels, & Robinson, 2005) T he mere fact that poor and minority communities are more vulnerable than the general population runs afoul of the result oriented Ralwsian notion of distributive justice, wherein intent is irrelevant (see Bullard, 1990). A strong albeit not causal relationship has also been established between race/class and the spatial distribution of environmental benefits Whereas environmental burdens are more likely to be located in poor and minority neighborhoods, fundamental environmental benefits (e.g. transportation, g reen space, healthy food) are more likely to aggregate in Whiter, more affluent areas. For example, transportation funding over the past fifty years has been heavily skewed in favor of private automobile ownership at the expense public transportation depe ndent individuals, who tend to be of lower SES ( Wright, 1997). Because the benefits of 22


transportation policy have not been equitably distributed, poor and minority communities are more likely to be isolated from jobs and other essential services than the general population (Stoll, 2005), thus affecting distributive justice by way of social mobility There is also an implied temporal aspect to distributional justice (Sagar & Banuri, 1999). The cause and effect relationship of anthropogenic climate change, for example, occurs over a period of generations and is timelagged. Unsustainable carbon emissions in the past and present disproportionately affect future populations, leading to concerns for intergenerational inequity (Ikeme, 2003). This argument ca n be generalized quite liberally the less sustainably we live in the present, the more hazards and fewer benefits we leave to future generations (Agyeman, Bullard, & Evans, 2002). Thus, distributive justice, at least in the temporal sense, imposes signi ficant duties of environmental conservation to ensure that an equitable share of resources is left for those who come after us (Page, 2007). Other scholars have taken a more pluralistic view; one not limited to the examination of distributive outcomes, but entailing fairness in underlying processes as well (see Walker, 2009). Functions like planning, permitting, regulation, enforcement, and litigation are controlled by individuals and groups with political and socioeconomic clout. T hose without such ca pital are at risk of exclusion from the processes that affect their immediate environment (Chess & Purcell, 1999). Lack of technical knowledge ( Godschalk, Brody, & Burby, 2003) distrust of the government (Laurian, 2004), and inadequate language skills ( K ing, Felty, & O Neill, 1998) similarly confound participation and elicit rejection of heterogeneous positions and perspectives (Hunold & Young, 1998, p. 87). Because procedure ultimately determines distributive outcomes, i t is 23


prima facie unjust to impose a risk on citizens without their having participated in the [decision making] process ( Hunold & Young, 1998, p. 87). It is understandable, then, that i ndividuals are more likely to see a particular result as just if they are involved in the process es leading up to it (Chess & Purcell, 1999). Environmental justice advocacy groups routinely complain of being denied a voice in their own destiny and the right to make decisions that affect them directly (Alston, 1991). Ergo justice in a procedural sense requires the opportunity for open, transparent, fair, and meaningful participation by all (Lake, 1996). This model encompasses what Schlosberg (2007) calls the centrality of participation, and can be cultivated through careful design and implementation of partici pationgarnering programs (Godschalk, & Burby, 2003) Normatively, those programs should focus on inclusiveness, stakeholder consultation, access to information, and shared decisionmaking authority (Hunold & Young, 1998). Kueh n ( 2000, p. 10,693) draws attention to the corrective aspects of justice which he describ es as fairness in the way punishments for lawbreaking ar e assigned and damages inflicted on individuals and communities are addressed. Corrective justice encompasses the idea that wrongdoing is remedied in a manner that both punishes the perpetrator and restores the injured party to a position of equity (Bullard, 1994). It is important to note that corrective justice is not simply punitive or compensatory in nature, but entails remedying the underlying injustice (Brooks, 1991). Corrective justice can include shutting down a source of pollution, addressing governmental agency inaction, relocating affected communities and individuals, or improving access to a beneficial community service. A related factor is recognition of aggrieved parties (see Honneth, 1992) Fraser (1997) and Pulido (1996) have argued that structural racism disrespects 24


and devalues nonhegemonic groups and fails to recognize their positions on the environment. When affected communities raise environmental concerns in an attempt to pursue corrective justice actions, politically and economically powerful stakeholders may simply disregard them. Practically, once a neighborhood is labeled by the public as the wrong side of the tracks, undesirable land uses inevitably follow (Been, 1993, 1994). Residents are seen as just another part of the squalor, invisible to the outside world (Pellow, 2002). Conceptually environmental justice is, by its very nature, diverse and context specif ic. U nderstanding of the term has been shaped by the interplay between grassroots activism, public policy, and scholarship. Unfortunately, there is no common definition that provides a bright line distinction of what should or should not be included under the banner of environmental justice. Attempts to produce an attenuated definition threaten to exclude genuine environmental justice concerns, leading Sze & London (2008, p. 1332) to argue that i nstead of imposing a restrictive boundary around the concept of environmental justice, scholarship in this emerging field should embrace its wide ranging and integrative character, while remaining grounded in its political and theoretical projects to address the sources and impacts of social power disparitie s associated with the environment. That position is echoed by Schlosberg (2007, p. 54), who states that (a) refusal of narrow definitions is at the heart of the movement. Historical Overview of the Environmental Justice Movement Several excellent his torical overviews of the environmental justice movement have been published in recent years (see Bowen, 2002; Brule & Pellow, 2006, Cole & Foster, 2001). When exactly the environmental justice movement began to materialize is a matter of some contention a mongst commentators. But, its origins can be fairly traced 25


at least as far back as the 1970s when public health researchers began to actively explore associations between race, poverty, and levels of pollution (see Asch & Seneca, 1978; Berry, 1997; Freema n, 1972; Gianessi, Peskin, & Wolff, 1979; McCaull, 1976; Zupan, 1973). Although basic in scope and methodology, these early studies found affirmative evidence of systematic racial and socioeconomic disparities in the quality of environmental health with particular regard to the risks of air pollution exposure. Throughout that decade, the environmental justice movement began to gain traction both in the academi c community and with activists. B y the early 1980s citizens environmental justice advocacy groups began forming across the nation. In 1982, the mostly poor, predominantly Black community of Warren County in rural North Carolina became a flashpoint for environmental justice concerns across the nation. Without consulting local residents, the State of North Carolina sponsored a plan to construct a landfill designed to dispose of the highly carcinogenic compound polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). In many ways, Warren County represent s the quintessential environmental injustice scenario; a poor, politic ally powerless, community of color had subjected to a toxic waste facility in their immediate environment without meaningful representation. The injustice was further aggravated by the fact that none of the projects benefits, in the f orm of jobs or econo mic development, were projected to flow to the affected community. When local efforts failed to get the project sited elsewhere, residents banded together with national civil rights leaders in a grassroots effort to stop the project from moving forward in Warren County Protesters donned placards and blocked construction vehicles from approaching the site. In total, more than fivehundred protestors were arrested for acts of civil 26


disobedience (Bullard & Wright, 1992). Some of the arrestees, like Benjamin Chavis of the United Church of Chris ts Commission on Racial Justice were veterans of the civil rights movement and already well versed in the racialized politic s of previous decades Cole & Foster, 2001) The Warren County incident was the first time African Americans protested environmental conditions on a sc ale that attracted national media attention. Although the effort to relocate the Warren facility ultimately proved unsuccessful, environmental justice advocates were empowered by their abil ity to organize such a massive undertaking one that would lead to widespread recognition of environmental disparities. With the momentum gained from Warren County, environmental justice began to take shape as a full fledged social movement. Groundbreak ing reports from the United States General Accounting Office (1983) and the United Church of Christ (1987) found evidence of systematic environmental disparities based on race and class. In 1991, the University of Michigan hosted the First People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit. The conference produced a unifying code of environmental justice maxims entitled the Principles of Environmental Justice (reprinted in Appendix A), which include concerns over public health, worker safety, land use, trans portation, housing, resource allocation, and community empowerment (Lee, 1992). The recognition of diverse inter ests helped transition environmental justice scholarship away from its exclusive focus on waste facility siting to embody a more heterogeneous set of concerns. As EJ movements around the country continued to gain popular support, the Federal government was pressured to take a definitive stance on the issue. 27


In response, Congress created the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) in 1993 as an independent advisor to the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on matters of environmental justice. It was viewed by proponents as a monumental step in the right direction. NEJACs core objectives are to (1) i ntegrate environmental justice considerations into Agency programs, policies and activities ; (2) i mprove the environment or public health in communities disproportionately burdened by environmental harms and risks; (3) a ddress environmental justice by ensuring meaningful involvement in EPA decision making, building capacity in disproportionately burdened communities, and promoting collaborative problem solving for issues involving environmental justice; (4) s trengthen it s partnerships with other governmental agencies, such as other Federal agencies and State, Tribal, or local governments, regarding environmental justice issues ; and (5) e nhance research and assessment approaches related to environmental justice (NEJAC, 20 12) The role of NEJAC, with membership comprised of repres entatives from government, academia, and community advocacy groups, has continued to expand in the years following its crea tion. The next major landmark in environmental justice history occurred when President Clinton signed Executive Order 12,898 (the Order) on February 11, 1994 (reprinted in Appendix B). The Order requires that each agency of the Federal government make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations in the United States (EO 12,898, 1994) Although not enforceable as an individual cause of action, the Order represents a firm commitment by the Federal government to account for the environmental justice implications of its actions. A number of s tate governments subsequently adopted statutory law which directly (CA, DE, DC, IL, MD) or indirectly (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, MS, MT, NC, RI, VA, WY) addresses the environmental justice effects of governmental 28


action (UC Hastings, 2007) Others have incorporated environmental justice provisions into environmental and land use regulatory regimes. O nly six states (IA, KS, NV, ND, OK, SD) remain without some form of environmental justice program, policy, or statute (UC Hastings, 2007). Scholars and activists continue to develop theoretical and pragmatic knowledge o f environmental justice issues. Contemporary efforts include new populations, places, and problems (Sze & London, 2008). Energy policy, parks and green space, disaster response, and a number of other issues have emerged as appreciable new environmental justice considerations. Aided by the development of powerful new geospatial methodologies, researchers are posing important new questions while attempting to reinterpret existing ones. Advocacy and scholarship continue to drive the development of environmental justice as both a social movement and a theoretical construct. Perhaps the most enduring trait of environmental justice as a field of study is that it remains dynamic and open reinterpretation. Summary of Relevant Issues As environm ental justice scholarship has matured to include new perspectives, it has become clear that exclusion from environmental benefits can be just as harmful to as exposure to environmental burdens. Given that food is one of the most basic benefits derived fro m any environment, it is not surprising that environmental justice researchers have begun to question the link between health disparities and the lack of access to healthy food options in low income and minority neighborhoods The United States Department of Agricultures Dietary Recommendations for Americans defines a healthy diet as one that 29


limits intake of sodium, solid fats, added sugars, and refined grains and emphasizes nutr ient dense foods and bever ages vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fat free or low fat milk and dairy products, seafood, lean meats and poultry, eggs, beans and peas, and nuts and seeds. (USDA, 2010, p. ix) Table 11 presents findings from most recent version of the publication, which is reviewed every five years. Notable recommendations include s witch ing from whole fat to skim or 1% dairy products, increasing fruit and vegetable intake to 15% of total consumption, replacing at least half refined grains with whole grains, and diversifying sources of protein to include more fish and seafood. Other recommendations include cutting back on foods high in solid fats, added sugars, and salt. USDA also prescribes weight maintenance through balancing caloric needs with physical activity (USDA, 2 012 b ). As a general rule, healthy diet s include a spectrum of food options that are varied, balanced, and minimally processed ( USDA, 2012 b). The majority of Americans no longer meet these guidelines ( Krebs Smith, Guenther, Subar, Kirkpatrick, & Dodd, 201 0 ). For most of our collective history, humans lived close to the land, with an inherent understanding of the food systems upon which we rely. In the relatively few years since World War II, the manner in which Americans grow, harvest, and process food has changed dramatically. Sustainable farming practices of past generations have given way to chemical and energy intense m onocultur e, as small, family owned farms have all but disappeared in favor of large conglomerates (Gottlieb & Joshi 2010) These changes have had profoundly negative effects on the environment, adding to soil erosion, pollution (e.g. pesticide and nutrient runoff), and global climate change at unsustainable rates (Horrigan, Lawrence, & Walker, 2002). 30


The way we access and consume f ood has changed commensurately. Market driven emphasis on convenience and speed has helped turn the US into a fast food nation (Schlosser, 2001). Highfat, high sodium, calorically dense food is ubiquitous and cheap (Drewnowski & Darmon, 2005), as are soda and other beverages laden with sugar and highfructose corn syrup (Nielson, & Popkin, 2004). Between 1970 and 2005, average intake of fats and sugar/sweeteners increased 61% and 19%, respectively (Wells & Buzby, 2008). Much of what Americans now eat is bereft of essential vitamins and minerals, and has little real nutritional value (Jeffrey & French, 1998). The surprisingly counterintuitive result has been an exponential rise in the number of Americans who are over fed but still poorly nourished (Dr ewnowski & Specter, 2004). Dietary changes, in combination with other factors like lack of exercise, have contributed to a range of adverse health conditions. Obesity in particular has reached epidemic proportions. The prevalence of obesity in US adult s has reached 32.2% for males and 35.5% for females (Flegal, Carroll, Ogden, & Curtin, 2010) and rates are even higher amongst poor and racial minority populations (Morland & Evenson, 2009; Papas et al., 2007; Saelens et al. 2012) For example, in a national study of 46,707 children in the US, Singh, Kogan, Van Dyck, & Siahpush, (2008) found that the odds of obesity were 2.7, 1.9 and 3.2 times higher for poor Hispanic, white, and black children, compared to affluent white children. While changes in dietary factors alone are insufficient to fully explain the current obesity crisis, limited access to healthy food options is clearly part of the problem (Booth, Pinkston, & Poston, 2005). When communities lack access to healthy, 31


affordable, and culturall y appropriate food options, they tend to seek out cheaper food alternatives that are more energy dense, but less nutritional (Drewnoski & Darmon, 2005). This phenomenon has been documented in poo r and minority communities, where fullservice supermarkets and other healthy options are underrepresented, overpriced, or nonexistent (Moore & Diez Roux, 2006; Powell, Slater, Mirtcheva, Bao, & Chaloupka, 2007; Lewis et al. 2005). As Alkon & Norgard (2009, p. 3000) note, (a)ccess to healthy food is shaped not only by the economic ability to purchase it, but also by the historical processes through which race has come to affect who lives where and who has access to what kind of services. Hence, food assistance programs, designed to address only one dimension of food insecurity, are insufficient on their own to solve problems of access to healthy food. Research Objectives and Questions Amongst other objectives, e nvironmental justice research seeks to explain raceand class based disparities in adverse health endpoints. At the same time, diet related disease has become one of the most pressing public health concerns today. It logically follows that researchers should be attempting to establish whether systematic patterns of discrimination exist in food access and, if so, how a better informed environmental justice discourse might be able to address the problem. This dissertation attempts to answer such questions by examining supermarket access in urban neighborhoods of Tampa Bay, Florida a midsized m etropolitan area of average size, population, density, demographics, land use patterns, racial discrimination and prevalence of diet related disease. It is an example case that can be extrapolated to other similarly situated urban areas The primary objectives are to (1) analyze the current state of environmental justice research, (2) create of a comprehensive GIS database of supermarket access 32


which maps supermarket locations against demographic neighborhood characteristics, (3) empirically test whether race based and/or class based disparities in food access are pr esent in the study area, (4) formulate policy recommendations for corrective action, if necessary, and (5) identify the limitations of this study and avenues for future research. The primary r esearch questions for this project are as follows: 1. Is t he percentage of Black residents in a neighborhood is associa ted with supermarket access? 2. Is low neighborhood S ES associate d with supermarket access? 3. Are food deserts defined as neighborhoods that ar e predominantly Black or low SES and characterized by poor access to supermarkets present in the study area? Relevance of this Work T houghtful, policy oriented research on food access serves an important role in the environmental justice literature because disparities in access to healthy food can amplify ex isting in congruities in rates of diet driven disease. This original contribution to environmental justice scholarship is compelling because it fills informational gaps in an emerging but unsettle d area of research. It takes another critical step toward understanding how local communities access food. The analysis presents powerful methodologies and a unique theoretical framework that can be used to inform discussions about environmental justice policy, advocacy, and decisionmaking in the study area and beyond. The findings generated by this work can be used in conjunction with data on other topics, including geography, transportation, environmental and land use planning, disaster management, an d public health to address a broader range environmental justice concerns. While the results of this project are limited in scope to a single metropolitan area, the model set forth is an applicable starting point for wider 33


food access research. As awareness of disparities in access to healthy food continues to rise, the type of evidence provided by this study will become more essential to environmental justice advocates, researchers, urban planners, public health professionals, economists, and decision makers working on food desert issues Outline of the Dissertation Chapter 1 has been an introduction to this dissertation, and includes a conceptual discussion of environmental justice, a brief historical overview of the environmental justice movement, a synopsis of the issues relevant to this project, and a discussion of the research objective s and design. Chapter 2 presents an indepth review of the environmental justice literature. A diverse range of topics are presented, from the foundational research o f the 1980s to newer problems which were chosen to emphasize how limited access to environmental amenities can disproportionately affect low income and minority communities. Chapter 3 investigates food insecurity, access to healthy food options, and theor ies of causation. Chapter 4 establishes the parameters of the case study, with sections on the data and methods, identifying the study area, neighborhood definition, and characterization of the local food environment. Chapter 5 is the case study analysis which establishes subpopulations of concern and measures of accessibility, and identifies potential food deserts. The findings of the case study are presented in Chapter 6 along with policy suggestions, limitations of this work suggestions for future avenues of research and conclusions 34


Table 1 1 Dietary Recommendations (Based on USDA, 2010) Healthy Food Options to Increase Unhealthy Food Options to Decrease Choose foods that provide more potassium, dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamin D, which are nutrients of concern in American diets. These foods include vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and dairy products. Reduce daily sodium intake to less than 2,300 milligrams (mg) and further reduce intake to 1,500 mg among persons who are 51 and older and those of any age who are African American or have hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. Consume at least half of all grains as whole grains. Increase wholegrain intake by replacing refined grains with whole grains. Consume less than 10% of calories from saturated fatty acids by replacing them with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Increase intake of fat free or low fat milk and milk products, such as milk, yogurt, cheese, or forti fied soy beverages. Consume less than 300 mg per day of dietary cholesterol. Reduce the intake of calories from solid fats and added sugars. Increase vegetable and fruit intake. Eat a variety of vegetables, especially dark green and red and orange vegetables and beans and peas. If alcohol is consumed, it should be consumed in moderation up to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men and only by adults of legal drinking age. Choose a variety of protein foods, which include seafood, lean meat and poultry, eggs, beans and peas, soy products, and unsalted nuts and seeds. Keep transfatty acid consumption as low as possible by limiting foods that contain synthetic sources of trans fats, such as partially hydrogenated oils, and by limiting othe r solid fats. Replace protein foods that are higher in solid fats with choices that are lower in solid fats and calories and/or are sources of oils. Use oils to replace solid fats where possible. Limit the consumption of foods that contain refined grains, especially refined grain foods that contain solid fats, added sugars, and sodium. Increase the amount and variety of seafood consumed by choosing seafood in place of some meat and poultry. 35


CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The gravity of environmental justice research is underscored by the vast proliferation of literature on the to pic over the past thirty years. Researchers have produced literally thousands of articles and books on an expansive range of related topics. An exhaustive review would fill several volumes of work, and is beyond the scope of this dissertation. Instead, the author presents a diverse representation of highquality, relevant works that describe the historic progression and current state of the literature in the field. A basic assumption of this review is that racism is not confined to overt, hostile acts of discrimination, but includes socio historic processes which lead to unjust outcomes. Viewing race as a systematic social construct rather than a series of singular, discrete acts enables us to develop a more structural, less conscious, and more deeply historicized understanding of racism. It differs from [viewing racism as] a hostile, individual, discriminatory act, in that i t refers to the privileges and benefits that accrue to White people by virtue of their whiteness. (Pulido, 2000, p. 13) In his classic essay on critical race theory and environmental injustice, Lawrence (1987, p. 318) asserts that we [are] all victims of our cultures racism, adding that Americans share a common historical and cultural heritage in which racism has played and still plays a dominant role (Lawrence, 1987, p. 322). Omi & Winant (1994, p. 14) argue that race overflows the boundaries of sk in color, super exploitation, social stratification, discrimination and prejudice, cultural domination and cultural resistance, state policy (or of any other particular social relationship), and that racial dimensions [are] present 36


to some degree in every identity, institution and social practice in the United States. These arguments are reaffirmed by Delgado (2000, p. 2284), who notes that racism would continue to exist and perhaps intensify if we did not think about it at all. It is from this pers pective that the author here examines the literature of environmental justice. This chapter traces the progression of environmental justice literature from the early works of the 1980s through the present. Selected topics include early foundational resear ch, waste facilities, unequal enforcement of the law, farmworkers, and Native Americans. Other subsections focus on the built environment, encompassing a wide range of issues from air pollution to transportation to energy policy and global climate change. Lastly, the chapter highlights important environmental justice questions that still remain to be answered, providing an applicable segue into the subject matter of the following chapter and the remainder of this project access to healthy food. Foundati onal Research Reports by the United States General Accounting Office (USGAO, 1983) and the United Church of Christs Commission for Racial Justice (UCC, 1987), along with sociologist Robert Bullards (1983) article on Houston, Texas landfill siting, have l ong been considered seminal works in the field of environmental justice. The primary question posed by these works is whether those of low SES and/or nonWhites are more likely to be located in close proximity to one or more hazardproducing facility. Al l three studies answer in the affirmative. In 1983, Professor Bullard, who has been instrumental in shaping the environmental justice discourse, sought to determine whether Black Houstonians were 37


more likely to live near solid waste disposal sites than their non Black counterparts. By tabulating demographic data from neighborhoods adjacent to disposal sites, Bullard (1983) found that twenty one of the twenty five (84%) solid waste incinerators and landfills in the city were located in predominantly African American neighborhoods. A fter controlling for income and other demographic factors race was still positively associ ated with proximity to landfill sites Also in 1983, US Representative Walter Fauntroy (Democrat, Washington, D.C.), was arrested alongside other civil rights leaders and demonstrators in Warren County, North Carolina while protesting the siting of a proposed PCB landfill (Bullard, 1992). At Fauntroys request, the US General Accounting Office conducted a demographic study of the c ommunities located near four major hazardous waste treatment, storage, and/or disposal (TSD) facilities in the Southeast (US GAO, 1983). The GAO study reported that AfricanAmericans comprised 38%, 52%, 66%, and 90% of communities surrounding the four landfills. In contrast, less than 30% of any host states total population was African American. The study also found that poverty rates in the same communities exceeded host state poverty levels by as much as 23%. The methodological validity of the GAO study was later questioned for its lack of traditional scientific controls (see Anderton, Anderson, Oakes, & Fraser 1994). Regardless, it remained a powerful piece of evidence in support o f environmental justice theory and helped spark academic interest in the topic. Four years later, t he United Church of Christ commissioned another landmark study on the association between race and the location of TSD facilities (UCC, 1987). S ocioeconomic and demographic data from ZIP codes housing at least one TSD facility 38


were compared against all other ZIP codes in the country without any TSD facilities. Multiple variables, including race and income, were tested statistically to gauge their association with TSDF location. Major findings included: (1) race was the mos t significant variable tested in relation to TSDF location; (2) ZIP codes with one TSDF had approximately double the number of racial minorities as ZIP codes with no TSDFs (24% vs. 12%); and (3) ZIP codes with two or more TSDFs or one of the five largest commercial hazardous waste landfills had more than three times the amount of minority residents (38% vs. 12%). The UCC report identified several potential factors to account for the findings. First, the environmental movement as a whole is predominantly White and middle class. Racial minorities have historically been only marginally involved in mainstream environmentalism and have tended to focus their activism on civil rights issues. Second, high rates of unemployment and poverty often place minority neighborhoods under intense economic pressure to accept the perceived compensation that hazardous waste facilities offer. Third racial minorities tend to be less healthy in general which compounds the problem of gathering evidence for environmental rela ted illnesses. Taken together, these factors culminate in a collective lack of will to oppose polluting entities, which helps explain why they are disproportionately located in poor and nonWhite neighborhoods. Waste Sites The 1990s witnessed a dramatic proliferation in the volume of environmental justice literature. TSD facilities and entities required to report chemical releases to the Environmental Protection Agencys Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) continued to receive 39


mu ch of the attention.1 Bullard (1990) published the quintessential Dumping in Dixie, which chronicles the legacy of environmental injustices in the Deep South dating back to the Jim Crow Era. The author draws a portrait of poor and racial minority neighborhoods as the historic dumping grounds for whiter and more affluent communities while arguing that racist sociopolitical mechanisms (e.g. discrimination in housing and job markets, unequal protection under the law, and lack of political capital) and deliberate targeting of racial minority populations have increased environmental health risks for those communities. Soon afterward, sociologists Paul Mohai and Bunyan Bryant conducted an influential review of existing literature, the bulk of which they found to support the environmental justice hypothesis (Mohai & Bryant, 1992). Their article included an original study on the spatial incidence of TSD facilities (14 existing and 2 proposed) in metropolitan Detroit, Michigan which revealed that racial minorities perceived the environmental quality in their neighborhoods to be significantly poorer than did Whites. Mohai & Bryant (1992, p. 931 ) thus postulated that minority residents perceptions of environmental injustice matched the reality borne out by the lit erature review, and concluded that the patterns of discrimination illustrated by these studies indicate clear and unequivocal class and racial biases in the distribution of environmental hazards A multitude of ensuing studies supported Mohai & Bryants results (see Goldman & Fitton, 1994; Hird, 1993; Hird & Reese, 1 998). For example, Brown (1995) found that race and class are significant in regard to the extent of Federal remedial action. Perlin et al. (1995) and Ringquist (1997) both observed that racial minorities are more likely 1 As established by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), codified at 42 USC 11001 et s eq. (1986). 40


than Whites to live in counties with high Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) values. Others found significant associations between race, SES, and the location of National Priority L ist sites (Stretesky & Hogan, 1998) and brownfields (Felto n, 2005; Rowan & Fridgen, 2003) Scholars have amassed a multitude of placebased case studies on waste facility siting in low SES and racial minority neighborhoods. Examples abound from every region in the country, including Georgia and Ohio ( Kreisel, Centner, & Keller, 1996), Florida (Stretsky & Lynch, 1999), Indiana (Maher, 1998), Michigan (Mohai & Bryant, 1992), Southern California (Boer et al., 1997; Brajer & Hall, 1992; Burke, 1994; Sadd, Pastor, Boer, & Snyder, 1999), South Carolina (Mitc hell Thomas, & Cutter, 1999), the Southeast (Cutter & Solecki, 1996), and Texas (Napton & Day, 1992; Tiefenbacher & Hagelman, 1999). The weight of evidence is difficult to ignore given the diversity of data sources, methods of analysis, geographic regions, and types of facilities investigated. Not unexpectedly, however, such a voluminous and politically charged body of literature is bound to generate contradictory findings. The first major challenge to the environmental justice hypothesis came from Anderton et al. (1994). In a national study of TSD facility siting (interestingly financed by Waste Management Incorporated), the authors questioned the validity of the environmental justice hypothesis in expansive terms, s tating that almost no support [ex ists] for the general claim of environmental inequity (Anderton et al., 1994, p. 243). Other studies followed Anderton et al. (1994) in rejecting environmental in justice as a general trend (see Anderton, Oakes, & Egan, 1997; Atlas 2001, 2002; Davidson & Anderton, 2000; Hamilton, 1995; Oakes, Anderton, & Anderson, 1996). 41


A main point of contention between Anderton et al. (1994) and studies affirming the environmental justice hypothesis concerns geographic units of analysis. Anderton et al. (1994) contends that when studies using ZIP code data are aggregated to the census tract l evel, factors of race and socioeconomic status become insignificant The authors correctly note that smaller areas are more homogenous and thus less susceptible to aggregation errors. However, a s Bullard (1996, p. 496) points out it is possible for multiple and distinct neighborhoods to be imbedded inside a single census tract. Furthermore, Been (1995) and Mohai (1995) argue that o ther significant methodological differences between Anderton et al. (1994) and work based on larger units of analysis probably contributed to the incongruity in results For example, Anderton et al. (1994) omitted rural areas and areas without at least on e existing TSD facility. Subsequent analysis has shown that once those areas are added to the model, even when aggregated to the census block, both race and income again become significant (Mohai, 1995). The debate over waste facility siting trends has been further permeated by two questions. First, much of the literature was mired for years in a long standing dispute over the importance of race versus class with commentators championing the causal potential of rac ial factors at the expense of socioec onomic status, and viceversa. Under pressure from policymakers and industry, researchers struggled to determine the degree to which environmental injustice is a function of either racebased inequality or classbased market dynamics (Downey, 1998). Downey & Hawkins (2008) argue that this question represents a false dichotomy because racebased and incomebased associations with environmental quality are not mutually exclusive. Not only do race 42


and socioeconomic status both matter, but the interaction of the two probably also affects environmental injustice (Downey & Hawkins 2008). Mohai & Saha (2007, p. 411) concur, suggesting that we need to know what role both race and class play because disparities have been found along both dimensions. Second, in what has become known as the chicken or egg debate, researchers have questioned whether new waste facilities are sited in neighborhoods that are already predominantly poor and minority or whether racial minority and poor residents have instead moved int o communities with existing waste facilities (e.g. because cheap land values and rents are significant drivers for polluting industries and low SES individuals ; Been 1993, 1994; Been & Gupta, 1997). Pastor, Sadd, & Hipp (2001), however, showed that over a thirty year period in Southern California, polluting facilities were consistently sited in neighborhoods which already had a higher proportion of racial minorities. Saha & Mohai (2005) reached similar conclusions after examining land use trends over fift y years in Michigan. Others ( see Bullard, 199 0 ; Pulido 1996, 2000) argue that even if the idea of minority movein were supported by evidence, such disparate results would be discriminatory per se despite the lack of conscious racist intention. Current facility siting research continues to produce divergent results. Evaluations by Allen (2001), Ash & Fetter (2004), Brulle & Pellow (2006 ), Lester, Allen, & Hill (2001) and Mennis & Jordan (2005) once again found race to be significant after controlling for income and other neighborhood char acteristics. But Atlas (2002) failed to observe the same relationship. Unfortunately, there is little cohesion amongst even comprehensive review articles .2 Differences in modeling, statistical technique, and data inclusion 2 Evans & Kantrowitz (2002), Mohai, Pellow, & Roberts (2009), and Szasz & Mauser (1997) found systematic evidence of envir onmental injustice while Bowen (2002) and Foreman (1998) did not. 43


account for much of the inconsistency in results (Downey & Hawkins, 2008), suggesting that methodological complications and epistemological disagreements still persist to some degree. For example, a landmark metaanalysis by Rinquist (200 5 p. 23) confirms that the facility siting literature has produced ubiquitous evidence of environmental disparities based upon race, but not by SES. While seldom used in the realm of environmental justice research the metaanalysis is powerful tool for summarizing the results of a contested body of literature. In his study, Professor Ringquist (2005 ) converted the results of forty five frequently cited quantitative studies into a common metric for examination use metaanalytic regression. The effect of race on facility siting was positive and significant (pvalue < .001), indicating that the waste facility literature as a whole supports the environmental justice hypothesis with regard to race. In contrast, the study did not support the contention that similar inequities exist with respect to economic class, suggesting that, at least with respect to waste facility siting, SES is less important as an explanatory f actor than race (Ringquist, 2005, 223). While facility siting research occupies a central r ole in the environmental justice literature, it is but one component of the aggregate discourse. In the words of Bullard (1996, p. 493), environmental justice is more than just waste facility siting. He argues that environmental justice movements emerg ed not simply in response to disparate siting of hazardous facilities in poor and minority neighborhoods, but rather as a consequence of a broad spectrum of socioenvironmental disparities including (1) unequal enforcement of environmental, civil rights, and public health laws, (2) differential exposure of some populations to harmful chemicals, pesticides, and other toxins in the home, school, neighborhood, and workplace, (3) faulty assumptions in calculating and assessing risks, (4) 44


discriminatory zoning and landuse practices, and (5) exclusionary policies and practices that limit some individuals and groups from participation in decision making (Bullard, 1996, p. 493) Goldman (1994) was also early in noting racial disparities in exposure to air and wat er pollution, pesticide exposure, childhood lead poisoning, toxic fish consumption, and the unequal application and enforcement of environmental laws. A multitude of additional nonsiting concerns have continued to develop over time. The following sections summarize the literature on those issues. Unequal Enforcement of the Law Environmental Justice advocat es have long claimed that governmental agencies are complicit in producing environmental disparities via unequal enforcement of environmental and civil rights laws (see Lawrence, 1987; Bullard, 1993). The argument is that the private sector alone could not perpetuate such injustices without at least tacit approval from planning, decisionmaking, and regulatory bodies. In one early example, Lazarus (1993) noted that penalties for infractions are lower and cleanup times for contaminated sites are slower in nonWhite neighborhoods. Kuehn (1994) concurred, adding that cleanup times in low income neighborhoods were, on average, 20% longer. In Lavelle & Coyl e s (1992) seminal paper, the authors found that from 1985 through 1991, judicial enforcement actions in low income areas resulted in fines that were roughly $50,000 less than average. However, Atlas, ( 2001) and Ringquist (1998) both rejected those result s on methodological grounds. And, K o nisky & Shiro (2010, p. 853) caution that e vidence of dispar ities in regulatory enforcement whatever their pattern does not itself mean that poor and minority groups face disproportionate environmental risks. St ill, the weight of the evidence appears to support the idea that patterns of disparity in enforcement do occur, at least on a localized basis. Lynch, 45


Stretesky, & Burns (2004) offer an articulate commentary in which they demonstrate that petroleum refineries tend to pay lower fines for environmental violations occurring in low income and minority areas. Further, in what is perhaps the most thorough study in this sub body of li terature, Konisky (2009a) found that enforcement behavior is strongly associated with SES (but not race). There is also evidence that Federal policy has been ineffective in bolstering state enforcement of laws designed to remedy environmental justice problems (Konisky, 2009b). A number of theories have been offered to explain why unequal enforcement occurs. These include, inter alia lack of participation in the legislative and enforcement processes, failure of lawmakers to account for equity, historical patterns of discrimination in land use, impossibly high evidentiary burdens, the problem of proving discriminatory intent, and NIMBYism (Kaswan, 1997, 1999). Regrettably, much of the work on unequal enforcement has done little more than chronicle the failures of private law to remedy the situation (e.g. rather than espousing concrete policy recommendations for future action). Thus, Lawrence (2008, p. 931) notes the risk of focus ing on the mechanisms of cognitive categorization rather than on the histor y and culture of racial subordination embedded in our unconscious , which has inhibited our understanding of racism as a social disease Although it is generally accepted that unequal enforcement occurs, it is still not clear exactly why. Opp (2012) recognizes the need for qualitative research to establish concretely the underlying motives that dictate how and why enforcement decisions are made. Konisky (2009a) adds that macrolevel policy changes should drive equal enforcement, specifically by tying Federal funding to environmental justice clauses in Federal/state partnership agreements. 46


Farmworkers and Pesticide Exposure Farmworkers have been at the nucleus of environmental justice research for many years (Cole & Foster, 2001). The 4.2 million farmworkers in this country, 90% of whom are people of color ( Mines, Gabbard, & Stewart, 1997), are far more likely than the general population to experience environmental and occupational illness (Rust, 1990; Sesinger, 1992). The primary environmental justice concern within the farmworker community has historically been pesticide exposure, which can lead to serious injury or death for farmworkers (Moses, 1989) their families, and nearby residents through pesticide drift (Harrison, 2011) Acute symptoms of pes ticide poisoning include skin rashes, eye irritation, headaches, vomiting, shortness of breath, convulsions, coma, and death (Reeves & Schafer, 2003). NonHodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, and brain cancer have been linked with chronic exposure (Mills & Kwong, 2001). Lack of control over pesticide policy, inadequate training and supervision, cultural differences in risk perception, difficulty in obtaining information, and insufficient monitoring practices have contributed to high exposure rates in farmworker communities (Arcury, Quandt, & Russell, 2002; Mayer, Flocks, & Monaghan, 2010; Flocks, Monaghan, Albrecht, & Bahena, 2007; Quandt et al., 2006). Exclusion of farmworkers from meaningful protection under Federal labor laws ( e.g. the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938) has exacerbated the problem. Legal avenues for recourse are often limited, and depend largely on EPA regulation of pesticides (Perfecto & Valasquez, 1992). Flocks ( 2012, p. 256) argues that social, economic, and political factors interact in a way that ensures that farmworkers continue to lack participation in decision making in pesticide 47


regulation, that disproportionate health impacts are perpetuated, and that changing the status quo is difficult. As a result, United Farm Workers (UFW) and numerous grassroots organizations have undertaken public campaigns to fight for envi ronmental justice in farmworker communities. Despite the large power differential between agribusiness and farmworkers several of these campaigns have met with success. Recently, the United Farm Workers and its affiliates successfully lobbied to get the highly carcinogenic pesticide methyl iodide pulled from use in the California strawberry market (Berton, 2012). Still, agriculture remains one of the most dangerous jobs in the country and farmworkers are precariously underprotected ( Farquhar et al., 2008 ). Pesticide exposure in farmworker communities is likely to remain a prominent environmental justice issue into the foreseeable future; however, collaborative and community based research techniques hold promise for future efforts ( Flocks et al., 2001; Flocks & Monaghan, 2003) Native Americans Native Americans hold a special place in both our national lore and the environmental justice literature About one third (~700,000) of the remaining Native Americans live on approximately 53 million acres of Tribemanaged lands (Harvard, 2008) where modern life has become a disturbingly sad state of affairs. These areas are amongst the poorest places in America, with 28.4% of residents living below the poverty line (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008).3 Crime and substance abuse are rampant, unemployment and high school dropout rates dwarf national 3 As compared to 15.3 percent in the general population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008). 48


averages, displaced families outnumber intact ones, gang violence is an everyday occurrence, and substandard housing is the norm (Bachman, 1992). Generations of environmental degradation have added to the misery (LaDuke, 1999). Native lands have been ravaged, with the support of the United States government (Kuletz, 1998), by hydroelectric projects (McMillan, 2011), oil and gas exploration (Fixico, 1998; Hall, 1992, 1994), mining (Ali, 2003; Dawson, 1992; Pasternak, 2010), coercive pollution by the military industrial complex (Hooks & Smith, 2004), and storage of nuclear waste (Gowda & Easterling, 1998; Sachs, 1996) i n what Grinde & Johansen (1995) call the ecocide of Native America. Tribes rarely, if ever, reap the full benefits of such projects, but continue to bear the full burden of the externalities left behind. Even more disturbing, many of the profound envir onmental justice issues involving Native lands originate from nonT ribal sources ( e.g. crossboundary pollution; Grijalva, 2008). Houdyshell (2006, p. 6) argues that the plight of the Indians brought about by the dominant White society arguably suggests a structure of raci al subordination and domination that lends itself perfectly to the notion of environmental [justice] Such broadscale environmental destruction has been particularly difficult on Native Americans, who depend on ancestral lands for their very survival, both physically and culturally (Wilkerson, 1991). Unlike other ethnic minority groups, Tribes have a special legal status with the Federal government, which dictates that Tribes remain sovereign to govern their own affairs (Suag ee, 1994; Wood, 1994). The Tribal Federal relationship is best thought of as government to government, where preestablished treaty rights direct each partys rights and duties ( Wa lker, Bradley, & Humphrey, 2002). 49


This political arrangement gives the Tri bes far reaching powers to control environmental protection within their own boundaries (Zaferatos, 1998). Consequently, environmental justice in the Native American context cannot be contemplated apart from a recognition of American Indian tribes unique historical, political, and legal circumstances (Ranco, Oneill, Donatuto, & Harper, 2011, 221). Nevertheless, Tribal environmental policy has been extensively forced (through economic and legal coercion) to rely upon standard Federal environmental pr actices which have thus far failed to produce equitable results on Native lands (Robyn, 2002). For example, EPAs risk assessment guidance is calculated using attributes from urban and suburban dwellers, and thus do not provide appropriate means for defi ning environmental risk, promoting effective remediation, decreasing exposure, or restoring community health in Indian C ountry ( Arquette et al. 2002, p. 260). Patterns of exposure to environmental hazards are distinct from the rest of society, in large part because many Natives still adhere to their traditional lifestyle of living off the land (Harris & Harper, 1997). This includes maintaining a Native diet, i n which fish consumption can be more than ten times higher than the EPA recommendation (Donantuto &Harper, 2008).4 Sadly, when waterways are polluted, species become contaminated, toxins bioaccumulate through the food web, and Tribe members are documented with astonishingly high toxic burdens (ONeill, 2001 2008).5 Instead of working to clean up waterways that were polluted off Reservation, the typical 4 Consumption of contaminated fish is by no means solely a Native American phenomenon. Other ethnic minorities, particularly those with difficulties speaking or reading English, also consume contaminated fish at higher than average rates ( s ee Connely, Knuth, & Brown, 1996; Tai, 1999; Reinert, Knuth, Kamrin, & Stober, 1996). 5 From heavy metals, pesticides, mining runoff, dioxins, PCBs, and a host of other pollutants (NEJAC, 2001). 50


Federal response has been that Tribe members should avoid the risk of consuming of the contaminated fis h, (thus destroying their unique heritage in the process; ONeill, 2003). This is a classic example of what Ranco et al. ( 2011) call the cultural dilemma in Native American environmental justice. The enduring, fundamental misunderstanding of Native American attitudes about the environment underlies a legacy of racism, inequality, and pollution that disproportionately affects Native people and lands For Tribes to fully achieve environmental justice, it is clear that more support ( e.g. funding, technical assistance, political will) is needed from outside the Reservation.6 The Built Environment The marriage of civil righ ts and public health vis vis environmental justice represents a fundamental transformation in public health policy over the past several decades (Frumpkin, 2005). Understanding of the built environment and its potential health effects have changed, as well. E vidence indicates that the built environment has profound, directly measurable effects on both physical and mental health outcomes, particularly adding to the burden of illness among ethnic minority populations and low income communities (Hood, 2005, p. 312). Because health outcomes (whether real or perceived) are arguably at the crux of environmental justice research, effective a ppraisal of environmental justice concerns cannot be accomplished without a unified vision of public health and the environment (Lee, 2002). 6 A recent example of such support comes from the Federal government via the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self Determination Act, which grants tribes greater control over energy resources on their lands (Royster, 2008). 51


Despite the strong correlation between race/socioeconomic status and environmental health, evidence of causation remains tenuous at this point (Sexton & Adgate, 1999). The actual mechanisms by which race and socioeconomic status produce negative health effects are still largely a matter of conjecture (Adler & Ostrove, 1999; Evans & Kantrowitz, 2002). Complications in cluding long incubation periods between exposure and outcome, high intracommunity variation between individuals, co aggravating lifestyle factors (e.g. smoking, diet, level of exercise, general health, substandard housing, and work environment), and differences in access to healthcare have hindered efforts to determine the underlying means by which race and class affect health outcomes (Northridge, Stover, Rosenthal, & Sherard, 2003). Further compounding the problem, little is known about the multiplicati ve and cumulative effects of exposure to the infinite combinations of known toxicants (Corburn, 2002; Krieg & Faber, 2004). Meaningful delineation of the racial and social factors driving environmental injustices will require advances in empirical methodology, multi disciplinary collaboration, and critical insight into the environmental justice research paradigm (Brulle & Pellow, 2006). Air Pollution Pollution, in its many forms, poses formidable challenges in this country and globally. Air pollution, in particular, is associated with a variety negative human and environmental health outcomes (Brunekreef & Holgate, 2002). Highquality review articles linking air pollution to cardiovascular and respiratory disease, asthma, increased hospitalizations, and overall mortality have been published in recent years (Duhme, Weiland, & Keil, 1998; Goldsmith & Kobzik, 1999; Nyberg & Pershagen, 2000; Pope, 1999; S unyer, 2001). In terms of environmental justice, compelling evidence indicates 52


that racial minorities and the poor are more likely than the general public to be ex posed to air pollution, and to suffer adverse health effects therefrom (Bullard, 2005; Gottl ieb, Beiser, & OConner, 1995; Gunier, Hertz, von Behren, & Reynolds, 2003; Gwynn and Thurston, 2001; Korc, 1996, Lui, 1996, MorelloFrosch et al., 2001). Much of the literature in this area focuses on a small handful of pollutants listed under the Clean Air Act. Multiple large scale studies have established that minority and poor individuals are disproportionately affected by ambient levels of air pollution and extreme pollution events, meaning that regulation of criteria pollutants (e.g. lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, ozone, sulfer oxides, and nitrous oxides) has largely failed to address risk exposure disparities in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Miranda, Edwards, Keating, & Paul, 2011). This phenomenon is not limited to the Unites States, as similar results were reported in studies of Canada, (Jerrett et al., 2001), New Zealand (Pearce, Kingham, & Zawar Reza, 2006), and the UK (Brainard, Fallon, Jones, Bateman, & Lovett, 2002). Exposure to hazardous air pollutants, of which there are 188 currently listed by the EPA, has also been shown to increase excess cancer risks (Apelberg, Buckley, & White, 2009; Gilbert & Chakraborty, 2011). Additionally, Mohai, Kweon, Lee, & Ard (2011) found a strong negative association between air pollution and s cholastic performance in poor and minority neighborhoods. One of the most convincing pieces of evidence on the topic comes from the A merican Lung Association (ALA, 2001). Upon examining hundreds of individual studies, the ALA review found that race and socioeconomic status (SES) are strong determinants of susceptibility to the adverse effects of air pollution (ALA, 2001, p. 360). In accordance with the broader public health literature, the authors acknowledge that 53


evidence of how socioeconomic and rac ial factors manifest in disproportionately negative health outcomes remains poor at this time. To close the information gap, the ALA study recommends conducting further research at the community level, providing education to residents, health care providers, and regulators, improving public participation and access to information, expanding monitoring systems, developing community based infrastructure and services, and conceiving planning systems that specifically account for environmental justice concerns (ALA, 2000). Housing Housing quality is amongst the strongest indicators of individual and community environmental health (Dunn & Hayes, 1999, Kreiger & Higgins, 2002; Matte & Jacobs, 2000). Substandard housing, characterized by lack of heat and runni ng water, indoor allergens, poor indoor air quality, faulty wiring, bad insulation, mold, cockroach and rodent infestation, lead paint, and leaks and holes in ceilings and wall s, presents a number of physical and emotional health concerns (Bashir, 2002). Intensification of asthma, allergies, and other chronic bronchial conditions, infectious diseases, problems with childhood development, physical injuries and depression are common byproducts (Sharfstein, Sandel, Kahn, & Bauchner, 2001; Thompson, Petticrew & Morrison, 2001). Bonnefoy (2007) outlines the following five categories as contributing to adverse health effects from substandard housing: (1) Physical conditions ( e.g. h eat, cold, energy efficiency, noise, inadequate light, ventilation, and particul ate matter); (2) Chemical conditions (e.g. carbon monoxide, radon exposure, volatile organic chemicals, secondhand smoke, lead); (3) Biological conditions (e.g. rodents, house dust mites, cockroaches and their associated allergens, humidity and mold); (4) Building and equipment conditions (e.g. accidents and unintentional injuries, access to sewer 54


services, hygiene and sanitation issues); and (5) Social conditions (e.g. architectural features, mental health concerns). Substandard housing is also the main s ource of l ead poisoning in the US. Despite being banned in household use since 1978, lead paint is still prevalent in many older, substandard dwellings. Exposure occurs through ingestion or inhalation of particles from lead based paint (Kraft & Scheberle, 1995). Both acute and chronic exposure can produce adverse health outcomes in the central nervous system, kidneys, and cardiovascular system ( Needleman, 2004). The particular susceptibility of children to lead poisoning has been documented in the liter ature for over a hundred years (Turner, 1909). Experts are beginning to concur that lead toxicity can occur well below the customary standard of 10 mg/dL of whole blood (ATSDR, 2007). Predictably, low SES and minority neighborhoods contain the bulk of s ubstandard housing in the nation, thus adding to the overall burden of environmental injustice in such places (Rauh, Chew, & Garfinkle, 2002). As early as the 1940s Robinson (1946) noted significant differences in the condition of dwellings by race, with non Whites residing in significantly less habitable surroundings Findings from a wide range of contemporary studies, including the Hazard Assessment and Reduction Program, the American Healthy Homes Survey, the Public Housing Assessment System, the Hous ing Quality Standards, the American Housing Survey, the Community Environmental Health Resource Center protocol, and the National Energy Audit Tool establish that racial and socioeconomic disparities persist in housing quality (Jacobs, 2006). To understand why, one need only to look at historic patterns of discrimination in housing, whereby e xclusionary land use policies and practices have continued to encourage racial 55


segregation and concentrate poverty (Orfield, 2005). Despite a litany of regulations in tended to integrate housing markets, new forms of discrimination ( e.g. racial steering, predatory lending) have taken the place of outright discrimination (Charles, 2005; Galster & Godfrey, 2005; Orfield, 2005). T he complex interplay between socioeconomic indicators ( e.g. political forces; human capital; soci al capital; community cohesion), neighborhood housing attributes ( e.g. average home values; type, age, and number of units; costs as a percentage of income; vacancy rates; utility costs; squalor/blight; and percentage of owner versus renter occupancy), and individual household characteristics ( e.g. race; income/wealth; family stability and support; level of education) virtually guarantees that the amount of safe, healthy, affordable housing stock in poor and minority neighborhoods is inadequate (Rauh, Landrigan, & Luz, 2008). Furthermore, l andlords of substandard housing, often in an intentional attempt to bolster profits or mitigate losses, regularly fail to maintain even the most basic tenets of habitability (Grinesky & Hernandez, 2010). Afraid of eviction, poor, minority residents are less willing to report problems to authorities (Grinesky & Hernandez, 2010). Once established, blight encourages more blight, and housing stocks in broken window neig hborhoods deteriorate quickly (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). In terms of housing environmental justice means more than just a roof over ones head. It depends on access to safe, healthy, affordable housing for all. However, the nations supply of t hose units is under threat in every part of the country from aging, gentrification, expiration of governmental benefits (e.g. public housing, HOPE VI), and 56


declining real wages (Bodaken, 2002). Reducing the environmental justice implications of housing wi ll require a multifaceted approach including investment in research that examines sources and pathways of exposure in the home and community environment; practical and proven interventions that prevent and reduce the probability of illness and injury; a unified healthy housing research agenda; longitudinal integrated representative housing and health populationbased surveys; and perhaps most important, broad implementation of healthy housing concepts into housing design, construction, maintenance, finance, and rehabilitation systems (Jacobs, 2011, p. S121) Parks and Green Space Parks and green space have been an integral part of the urban landscape in the US since the countrys foundation. These natural areas are critical to the physical and ment al health of city dwellers ( Chiesura, 2004; Crane & Kinzig, 2005; Maller, Townsend, Pryor, Brown & St Leger, 2006) In one study, Giles Corti et al. (2005) showed that people who live within walking distance of a park are three times more likely to get th e recommended daily amount of exercise than those who must rely on some other form of transportation to get there. As with other environmental justice research, there are clearly unanswered questions of causation (e.g. do those more interested in exercise move to areas with better access to recreation? Are planning departments more likely to site such amenities in whiter, more affluent neighborhoods? Are there other factors like crime and blight that cause inner city parks to fall into disrepair?). Still this phenomenon has important implications for the current obesity epidemic given the link between health and physical activity (Bjork et al., 2008; Nielson & Hansen, 2007). Researchers have documented additional environmental health benefits from gre en space. Boone, Buckley, Grove, & Sister (2009, p. 769 ) noted the im portance of 57


ecosystem services pro vided by green space, including moderation of the urban heat island effect, reduction in certain air pollutants, absorption of precipitation, filtratio n of water pollutants, reduction in floods, reduced loads on stormwater systems, and the provision of wildlife habitat . Community gardens can also provide an important source of fresh foods for low income residents (Ferris, Norman, & Sempik, 2001; Groenewegen, van den Berg de Vries & Verheij 2006), and parks are often the sole interface between urbanites and the natural environment ( Jorgensen, Hitchmough, & Calvert, 2002). Other studies have shown the economic importance of green space, indicating that property values near parks tend to be higher than similar properties without easy access to green space (Crompton, 2001). Given the tangible benefits of these public institu tions, one should expect them to be equitably distributed across the demographic spectrum However the literature has documented a legacy of unequal access to natural spaces (Floyd & Johnson, 2002; Salazar & Oliver, 1998) For example, neighborhoods wit h high proportions of minority and poor residents are less likely to house recreation facilities like parks (GordonLarson, Nelson, Page, & Popkin 2006; Wolch, Wilson, & Fehrenbach, 2005). Furthermore, even in instances where green space is widely available, crime and other social factors may prevent residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods from taking advantage of the associated benefits (Cutts, Darby, Boone, & Brewis, 2009). It is important to note that this area of research is still emerging. The num ber of studies in this field will no doubt increase with time, leading to a more mature conceptualization of the problem. 58


Transportation Transportation plays a central role in the modern built environment. Equity concerns in transportation policy are im mensely important because a strong correlation exists between transportation and quality of life indicators such as health and environmental quality (Steg & Gifford, 2004). Regrettably, failures in transportation planning often mean that racial minorities the very young and the elderly, the frail and the disabled, and those living below the poverty line are stranded on inner city islands; cut off from jobs and services they des perately need by flawed transportation policies (Almanza and Alvarez, 1997; Rit tner and Kirk, 1995). While t he positive outcomes of transportation policy ( e.g. access to job s, services, education, nature ) tend to accrue toward wealthier, Whiter neighborhoods, the negative aspects of poor transportation planning ( e.g. pollution, negative health outcomes, relative cost, pedestrian fatalities, seclusion, blight ) are more likely borne by the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum (Bullard, 2004, Gwynn & Thurston, 2001). For example, nonWhite children and children from low SES families are three times more likely to live in high traffic areas (Gunier et al., 2003), and are thus at significantly higher risk of exposure to air pollution (Chakraborty, Schweitzer, & Forkenbrock 1999; Jerrett et al., 2001). H ighway projects, transportation hubs, and other heavily polluting, transportation related land uses occur at higher rates in minority and poor communities (Brainard et al., 2002). M embers of those communities regularly lack effective political representation or a meaningful voice in transportation planning process es that affect them directly (Denmark, 1998; Khisty, 2000; Lee, 1997; Pfeffer, Wen, Ikhrata & Gosnell, 2002). The i nequitable socioeconomic and environmental 59


effects produced by poor transportation planning are often confoun ded by residential and occupational segregation (Orfield, 2005) Meanwhile, financial investment in transportation over the past fifty years has been heavily skewed to benefit the automobile owning commuter class at the expense of public transportation dependent inner city dwellers (e.g. those who are too young, too old, too poor, or physically unable to drive; Wright, 1997).7 Road projects have increased exponentially in size and number while public transportation infrastructure has been allowed to atrophy (Bullard, 2004; Bullard & Johnson, 1997). Transit authorities have focus ed their limited resources on recapturing market share through expansion of suburban commuter routes (Garrett & Taylor, 1999). This mismatch in priorities has meant that poor and r acial minority communities who are dependent on public transit have become more geographical ly isolated from key services and opportunities over time (Helig, 1998; Pucher, Evans, & Wanger, 1998; Sawicki & Moody, 2000), creating a dual tier transportation s ystem based on race and income (Feitelson, 2002). As is the case with most of the subbodies of environmental justice research, more work needs be done before the full impact of transportation policy on environmental justice outcomes is understood ( Schweit zer & Valenzuela, 2004). Emerging Issues Some newly emerging issues merit mention in this chapter because they have begun to garner a more conspicuous place in the literature over the past few years. Of these, transnational and global studies are well represented (see Agyeman et al., 2003; Walker & Bul ke ley, 2006). While there is no doubt that the roots of the EJ movement lie 7 Nearly 80% of Federal transportation dollars during this time has been allocated to highway and road projects, while only 20% has been allotted to public transit. 60


in the American Deep South, domestic and foreign researchers alike have begun to apply the environmental justice frame to transboundary and foreign instances of environmental discrimination. Schroeder, St. Martin, Wilson, & Debarati (2008) identify some of the mechanism s ( e.g. deindustrialization of North America and Europe; relocation of toxic and polluting industries ) that have helped create environmental injustices abroad. R esearch on transfers of hazardous waste from the Global North to South (Clapp, 2001), e waste (Smith, Sonnenfield, & Pellow, 2006), indigenous and minority land struggles (Geddicks, 1993; Schlosberg & Carrut hers, 2010), biopiracy and bioprospecting (Martinez Alier, 2002), oil and mineral exploration (ORourke & Connolly, 2003), and genetically modified crops (Gonzales, 2007) has proven fruitful. Domestically a handful of other nontraditional environmental justice topics have begun to attract scholarly interest. Natural disaster r esponse (Allen, 2007; Eliot & Pais, 2006; Troutt, 2005; Pastor et al., 2006), gender (Buckingham & Kulcur, 2009; Kurtz, 2007; MorelloFrosch, 1997), c hildrens issues (Hornberg & Pauli, 2007; Kohlhuber et al., 2006; Pastor et al., 2002) and w ater security (Van Derslice, 2011) are popular current themes in the literature. These emerging issues are part of a promising trend that proposes to augment the existing environmental justic e paradigm in ways that more fully capture the magnitude of how poverty, structural racism, and racialized geographies affect concepts of justice in socioenvironmental outcomes. Energy Policy and Climate Change One of the most visible areas of internati onal environmental justice research at present is energy policy and global climate change. Largescale, anthropogenic greenhouse gas releases since the industrial revolution have caused historic climate patterns to change at an accelerated pace (IPCC, 200 7). Despite years of 61


disagreement and industry funded misinformation surrounding the global climate change debate (Dorsey, 2007), the vast majority of evidence now demonstrates that humans have disrupted the underlying dynamics of the planets climate, thus threatening basic life support system s both for ourselves and all other forms of life on Earth (Gardiner, 2004, p. 559). Climate change predictions vary significantly, from relatively minor deviations in temperature and precipitation to catastrophi c weather events. Despite the contention over hypothesized causes and outcomes, there appears to be a general agreement in the literature that global climate change is expected to affect the poor and people of color at a disproportionate rate globally. Health effects will include net increases in heat and weather related disease, injury, and malnourishment (Frumkin, Hess, Luber, Malilay McGeehin, 2008; Patz, Gibbs, Foley, Rogers, & Smith, 2007) threats to food security (Bohle, Downing, & Watts, 1994) and freshwater supplies (Arnell, 1999), physical displacement, and inability to control the spread of infectious diseases like malaria (Martens et al., 1999; McMichael, Nyong, & Corvlan, 2008). Moreover, most of the greenhouse gas emissions that are the driving force behind global climate change can be attributed to developed nations, while poor nations comprised predominantly of people of color will likely be affected disproportionately (Adger & Kelly, 1999; Baer, 2002, 2006; Hoerner & Robinson, 2008; Ik eme, 2003; Paavola & Adger, 2006). For example, Indigenous Peoples, low lying island nations, and the developing countries of the Global South have contributed little to global climate change, yet were amongst the first to experience its effects first han d and will continue to be disproportionately affected into the future 62


( Barnett, 2001; Tsosie, 2007; Trainor, Chapin III, Huntington, Natcher, & Kofinas, 2007; Thomas & Twyman, 2005). The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC C ) and related initiatives have been the primary vehicles by which nations have attempted, without considerable success, to tackle global climate change and its associated problems (UNFCCC 1992). A wealth of literature has been dedicated to the UN regimes failure to effectively incorporate principles of equity, making environmental justice a central component of the overall climate change discourse. Questions of distributive justice dom inate the field, and can be divided into three basic categories: distribution of impacts, distribution of responsibility, and dis tribution of costs and benefits (Ikeme, 2003). Concerns regarding mitigation, adaptability, and intergenerational equity are also inherent in the distributional equity dialogue (Page, 2007). D istributive in justice alone is insufficient to explain the failures of the UN process. Posner & Sunstein (2007) argue that the absence of corrective justice mechanisms (e.g. holding devel oped nations accountable for past emissions) has widened the political North South divide in the climate change context Under the United Nations scheme, developed nations are effectively grandfathered in at emission rates from 1990 (Roberts & Parks, 2007). This is hugely advantageous for nations that were already developed and polluting heavily at the time. In contrast, developing countries India, China, & Brazil have been the most vocal have lobbied hard for the UNFCCC process to reflect some mea sure of corrective justice that would force developed countries to 63


account for pre1990 emissions while allowing more leeway for developing nations to increase emissions (Parks & Roberts, 2008). The environmental justice implications of hydrocarbonbased e nergy policy are not limited to the end of the pipe in the form of climate change. Extraction of hydrocarbon fuels, in itself, poses a variety of environmental justice concerns. C oal mining, for example, has provided the United States with cheap energy for well over a hundred years. At the same time, the poor, rural communities where the majority of American coal has been mined have been living with the disparate health impacts for generations ( see Ahern et al. 2011; McGinley, 2004). New processes o f resource extraction present even greater challenges. For instance, mountaintop removal (MTR) for coal extraction has destroyed entire landscapes, and in the process leveled poor, rural communities across Appalachia (Fox, 1999; Scott, 2010). Hydraulic fr acturing poses similar concerns. Fracking as it is more commonly known, is a process by which methane gas is extracted from shale formations. It is chemical intensive and threatens to pollute critical water resources in nearby communities (Carre, 2012). Grassroots anti fracking groups have become more vocal in recent years, often teaming up with anti MTR and affiliated networks R emaining Questions Researchers have no doubt developed a complex and sophisticated literature in the field of environmental justice. Advances in theory, methodology, and advocacy have allowed us to better understand the complicated interplay between race, class, the environment, and outcomes of injustice. The sheer v olume of research being produced speaks to the influence of environmental justice on the broader environmental dialogue. While scholarship has left a mark on a myriad of fields from public health to sociology, 64


the practical effect of advocacy has undeniably been just as important. It is commendable how far environmental justice, as a field, has progressed in a relatively short amount of time. Nonetheless, it is also clear that some poignant questions still linger and that more work remains to be done. Most apparently, environmental justice research remains narrowly focused on simple distributional questions of who gets what, and how much. Researchers should also be asking more difficult questions of how structural racism and other sociohistor ical processes lead to injustice and why certain places and populations end up being disproportionately affected. This will be a tedious exercise given the contextual and casespecific nature of the work. The challenge ahead is to integrate as many pieces of this puzzle as possible without diluting the distinct identity of environmental justice. Sze & London (2008, p. 1346 1347) argue that the path forward lies in our ability to analyze diverse problems of environmental justice through the common frame work that has been developed over the preceding decades: (w) hat environmental justice can offer is a framework that can engage otherwise disparate disciplinary fields into a transdisciplinary conversation, and that can surface the commonalities of struggle on diverse issues in diverse places and among diverse populations It has a master frame that can apply to multiple domains One of the questions that remain to be examined critically using this master frame is the subject of the next chapter and remainder of this dissertation; access to healthy food. 65


CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND ACCESS TO HEALTHY FO OD OPTIONS Chapter Outline The previous chapter provided an exploration of environmental justice research. Chapter 3 specifically examines the literature on access to healthy food options drawing on concepts from the material presented above. The chapter is organized into three sections, the first of which broadly considers lack of access to healthy food as a form of food insecurity and argues that the types of food options to which one has access are just as important, from a perspective of environmental justice, as securing an adequate number of daily calories. In the second section, evidence of racial and socioecon omic disparities in access to healthy food is presented, highlighting the relationship between food deserts and excess health risks in low SES areas and communities of color. Finally, theories on the formation of food deserts are presented with the caveat that no conclusive evidence exists yet as to why some low income and minority community neighborhoods are food deserts and others are not. Access to Healthy Food : More than Just Calories A logical place to begin the conversation on food access is with the related (but broader) term food insecurity, which has been defined as limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acqui re acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways ( Hamilton et al. 1997, p. 50 ). Food insecurity is a fundamental concern for environmental justice research because it is strongly linked with adverse health effects in low income and racial minority populations ( Cook et al. 2004; Kumanyika, & Grier, 2006; Seligman, Laraia, & Kushel, 2010) Malnutrition and undernutrition are the most commonly reported conditions 66


associated with food insecurity ( Pelletier, Olson, & Frongillo, 2012), but less obvious health impacts like nutrient deficiency (Olson, 1999; Skalicky et al. 2006), cognitive and behavioral problems including poor scholastic performance ( Jyoti, Frongillo, & Jones, 2005), mental illness ( Siefert Heflin Corcoran & Williams 200 4; Siefert Heflin Corcoran, & Williams 2008; Whitaker, Phillips, & Orzal, 2006), and developmental disorders in infants and children (Lozoff, Jimenez, & Wolff, 1991; Pollitt, 1988; RoseJacobs et al. 2008) are also well documented. Food insecurity is also known to exacerbate existing health conditions, such as depression ( HuddlestonCasas, Charnigo, & Simmons, 2009) and diabetes (Nelson, Cunningham, Andersen, Harrison, & Gelber g, 2001) and is strongly correlated with poor overall health ( V ozoris, & Tarasuk, 2003). Since t he Great Depression of the 1930s, the Federal government has developed a number of wideranging platforms to address and alleviate food insecurity. Current programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP formerly the Food Stamp Program); Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, & Children (WIC); National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs; the Child and Adult Care Food Program; Summer Food Service Program; Emergency Food Assistance Program; Nutrition Services Incentive Program; Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas; Commodity Supplemental Food Program, food distribution programs on Indian Reservations and the Trust Territories; Senior Farmers Market Programs; and Special Milk Program Implementation is generally left up to individual states, producing dramatic variations in size and effect between locales ( Klerman & Danielson 2011) 67


Determining levels of chronic food insecurity involves complex but well gro unded methodology (Frongillo, 1999). A ccording to estimates from the United States Department of Agriculture, one in six Americans (44.6 million) participated in SNAP in 2012 (USDA, 2012a ).1 This represents a 244% increase in assistance since 2002, whic h was actuated in large part by increasing income inequality, the most recent economic recession, and major policy changes to SNAP and other food assistance programs (Klerman & Daniel son, 2011). Despite the essential safety net they provide, food assistan ce programs have not completely solved the predicament of food insecurity. Although these programs have reduced overall food insecurity by up to 30% ( Ratcliffe, McKernan, & Zhang 2011) food insecurity is not the same as food insufficiency, and t he dialog ue should not be limited to ensuring that vulnerable populations have access to an adequate supply of calories. To the contrary, food insecurity also fundamentally entails the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, ( Hamilton et al. 1997, p. 50) evoking questions not just about the amount of food available but the types of food options as well. T hus, Levedahl & Oliveira (1999, p. 307) suggest that (e)ven when low income households get enough to eat, they may not consume the types of foods and levels of nutrients required for good health. The nutritional quality of food is just as critical from an environmental justice standpoint as the quantity of calories to which one has access. C onsensus has long existed amongst the scientific community that consumption of high fat, calorically dense foods corresponds with a range of health problems, including weight gain, obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease ( Stender, Dyerberg, & Astrup, 2 007) There is 1 SNAP is available to most individuals who meet income and asset criteria ( Levedahl & Oliveira, 1999). 68


also a clear link between unhealthy food and increased overall mortality ( Rissanen et al., 2003). Conversely, consumption of fruits, vegetables and whole grains is associated with better overall heal th and protection from certain forms of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic medical conditions ( Bazzano, Serdula, & Liu, 2003; Van Duyn, & Pivonka, 2000; van't Veer, Jansen, Klerk, & Kok, 2000). Along with regular exercise and abstinence fro m tobacco products, maintaining a healthy diet is one of the most important lifestyle choices an individual can make to lower the risk of chronic disease (Mokdad, Marks, Stroup, & Gerberding, 2004). Unfortunately, the nutritional quality of the average American diet has declined significantly during the past forty years, and is now defined by high intake of fat, sodium, and simple sugars (Brownel & Horgen, 2004). Fundamental changes in diet, along wi th lack of exercise and other environmental factors, have generated profoundly adverse effects on the overall health of the population. For example, the prevalence of obesity in adults, as measured by Body Mass Index (BMI), has more than doubled since 1970 ( Flegal, Carroll, Ogden, & Johnson, 2002; Ogden et al., 2006). In children and adolescents, the rate has more than tripled during the same time period, making obesity one of the most pressing public health crises of the day ( Ogden, Flegal, Carroll, & Jo hnson, 2002). T here is evidence that food insecure individuals, households, and communities are even more likely than the general population to be affected by diet driven obesity trends. It is well established that participation in food assistance progr ams is associated with elevated prevalence of increased BMI, over weight, and obesity in low income women (Baum, 2007; Chen, Yen, & Eastwood, 2005; Gibson, 2003; Meyerhoefer & 69


Pylypchuk, 2008; Townsend, Peerson, Love, Achterberg, & Murphy, 2001 Zagorski & S mith, 2009), and to a lesser extent, children ( Gibson, 2004, 2006).2 P articipation in food assistance program also tends to increase intake of meats, added sugars, and total fats ( Wilde, McNamara, & Ranney, 2002 ). Exponential increases in the consumption of cheap but highly processed and e nergy dense sources of nutrition ( e.g. fast food, sweetened beverages) by food insecure populations has manifested in a n unsettling paradox. While those populations remain more likely to be undernourished and face recur ring hunger, they are also at greater risk of overnutrition, which can lead to overweight and obesity (Dietz, 1995). The situation is perplexing because it appears that the diets of people living in poverty may have adequate kilocalories to meet or exceed their energy requirements, but lack the dietary quality needed to promote optimal health and prevent chronic disease ( Tan umihardjo et al. 2007, p. 1996 ) As such, the relationship between food insecurity and overnutrition suggests that food environments have been manipulated by both market forces and governmental food assistance programs to champion caloric density at the expense of nutritional value (see M oss, 2013). Of course, the p revalence of obesity or any similarly complex public health concern cannot be easily attributed to a singular correlative relationship. A host of biological, chemical, psychological, and environmental factors interact to manifest as disease (Stunkard, 1988) The exact mechanisms are not yet fully understood, but it is evident that certain aspects of the built environment (e.g. lack of spaces for exercise, poor public transportation systems; lack of safe, affordable housing) are strongly linked 2 Although Schmeiser (2012) and Ver Ploeg, Mancino, & Lin (2007) reached contradictory results. 70


with obesity and other diseases ( Booth, Pinkston, & Poston, 2005; Papas et al., 2007). There is also little doubt that limitations in the range of food options available in a given location can lead to the development of an obesogenic environment (USHHS, 2000; WHO, 2003). 3 B aker, Schootman, Barnidge, & Kelly (2006, p. 1) thus argue that (w) ithout access to healthy food choices, individuals cannot make positive changes to their diets. If certain eating behaviors are required to reduce chronic disease and promote health, then some communities will continue to have disparities in critical health outcomes unless we increase access to healthy food. Food Deserts: Race and Class Disparities in Access to Healthy Food Options When entire neighborhoods are food insecure because they lack geographic access to healthy food, they are called food deserts. Beaulac et al. (2009, p. 1) define food deserts as areas characterized by poor access to healthy and affordable food which may contribute to social and spatial disparities in diet and diet related health out comes. Limited access to healthy food options, in the form of food deserts, negatively impacts ones ability to maintain a healthy diet (Hendrickson, Smith, & Eikenberry, 2006). While the term food desert can refer to a literal absence of healthy food in a given geography, studies of food deserts more commonly assess differential accessibility to healthy and affordable food between socio economically advantaged and disadv antaged areas ( Beaulac et al., 2009, p. 1 ). E vidence indicates that accessing healthy food is disproportionately problematic in low income and racial minority neighborhoods S everal trends have become apparent in food desert research. First, low incom e and racial minority communities host a lower per capita density of full service and chain supermarkets (Baker, Schootman, Barnidge, 3 Swinburn, B., & Egger, G. (2002) define an obesogenic environment as the sum of influences that the surroundings, opportunities, or conditions of life have on promoting obesity in individuals or populations. 71


& Kelly, 2006; Galvez et al. 2008; Horowitz et al., 2004; Shaffer, 2002 ; Zenk et al., 2005). For example, Powell, Slater, Mirtcheva, Bao, & Chaloupka (2007) found the prevalence of chain supermarkets in predominantly Black neighborhoods to be about half (52%) of that in majority White neighborhoods. The results of Morland et al. (2002) were more skewed, with White neighborh oods hosting five times as many supermarkets than Black neighborhoods. Second, residents of poor ( Alwitt & Donley, 1997, Morland et al., 2002) and racial minority (Helling, & Sawicki, 2003, Morland et al., 2002) neighborhoods may have to travel further t o access healthy food In Detroit, Zenk et al. ( 2005) found that areas with higher concentrations of Black residents were over a mile further from the nearest supermarket than White neighborhoods of similar SES. Internationally, Furey, Strugnell, & McIlveen (2001) reached similar conclusions in the UK, although Apparicio, Cloutier, & Shearmur (2007) did not find a relationship between proximity and race or SES for Montreal, Canada. Increased distance from healthy food options has been linked with higher rates of obesity (Inagami, Cohen, Finch, & Asch, 2006) and decreased dietary quality in pregnant women ( L araia, SiegaRiz, Kaufman, & Jones, 2004). Third, small groceries and convenience stores, which carry a less healthy variety of food options ( B ustillos, Sharkey, Anding, & McIntosh, 2009), are more prevalent in minority and racially mixed neighborhoods than in White neighborhoods ( Morland, Wing, Diez Rou x, & Poole, 2002), indicating that the aggregate availability ( Bodor, Rice, Farley, Swalm, & R ose, 2010a ) and quality ( Zenk et al. 2006) of healthy food s is lower Research in New York concluded that Black neighborhoods had a higher concentration 72


of convenience stores than White or Hispanic neighborhoods ( Gordon et al., 2011). Another study in Nueces County, Texas found that neighborhoods at the 75th percentile for MexicanAmerican residents had more than four times as many convenience stores compared with neighborhoods at the 25th percentile ( Lisabeth et al., 2010). Evidence from the diverse urban areas of Honolulu, Hawaii and Kansas City, Missouri also indicates that convenience stores are more prevalent in low SES and minority neighborhoods ( Lee et al., 2010 ). Other studies have found that poor (Moore & Diez Roux, 2006) and nonWhite (Romley Cohe n, Ringel, & Sturm, 2007 ) neighborhoods are more likely than affluent areas to host a liquor store, raising another set of health concerns (e.g. substance abuse, domestic violence, birth defects) Fourth, fast food, which is extremely energy dense and high in saturated fats ( Bowman, & Vinyard, 2004), is pervasive and overrepresented in low income and racial minority neighborhoods ( Bloc, Scribner, & DeSalvo 2004; Larson, Story, & Nelson, 2009) H ighly processed fast food options are associated with increased rates of obesity ( Lewis et al. 2005; Powell, Auld, Chaloupka, O'Malley, & Johnston, 2007). In a comprehensive review of forty fast food access studies, Fleischhacker, Evenson, Rodriguez, & Ammerman (2010, p. e469) concluded that food restaurant s are prevalent in low income (16 of 21 studies in support) and ethnic minority areas (10 of 12 studies in support) In a national study, Powell, Chaloupka, & Bao (2007) found that, amongst urban areas, predominantly Black neighborhoods have higher proportions of fast food restaurants than predominantly White neighborhoods. International studies from the UK (Cummins, McKay, & MacIntyre, 2005; Macintyre, McKay, Cummins, & Burns, 2005), Australia (Burns & Inglis, 2007; Reidpath, Burns, Garrard, Mahoney, & 73


Townsend, 2002 ), and New Zeleand (Pearce, Blakely Witten,& Bartie, 2007 ; Pearce, Hiscock, Blakely, & Witten, 2009) have produced mixed results. The (c)lear evidence for disparities in food access in the United States by income and race, ( Beaulac et al., 2009 p. 1) also indicates an empirical link between food deserts and adverse health outcomes particularly obesity and overweight Although researchers have yet to identify a specific set of causal mechanisms for obesity, many studies have shown an association between access to healthy food and BMI For example, Rundle et al. (2009) examined the association of food environments and BMI in New York. After controlling for walkability, the authors found t hat density of healthy food options was inversely associated with lower mean BMI, a lower prevalence of overweight, and a lower prevalence of obesity. Using data from 15,358 respondents who participated in the Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System between 1998 and 2002, Lopez (2007) found that higher supermarket density was associated with lower rates of obesity in adults. From a sample of 3,925 adults in New Orleans, Bodo r, Rice, Farley, Swalm, & Rose (20 10 b) concluded that each additional supermarket in a neighborhood corresponded with a decrease in the rate of obesity in adults, and that each additional convenience store or fast food outlet corresponded with an increase in the rate of obesity. Morland & Evenson (2009) ascertained that the prevalence of obesity in adults was significantly lower in census tracts with at least one supermarket and significantly higher in census tracts with at least one convenience store or fast food outlet. Powell, Auld, Ch aloupka, O'M alley, & Johnston (2007) reached similar results in a national study of adolescents. 74


Schafft, Jensen, & Hinrichs (2009) conducted a study of food access and overweight in Pennsylvania school children. Using GIS techniques to identify potenti al food deserts in the study area, the authors analyzed student BMI data to determine whether the proportion of a given school districts population residing in food desert s was associated with increased BMI among students School districts with a higher proportion of students residing in food deserts were positively correlated with increased rates of overweight. In another study of 1,295 adults living in urban areas of the southeastern US, Sturm & Datar (2005) found that higher prices for fruit and veget ables, as has been documented in food deserts (Chung, & Myers Jr, 1999), was correlated with increased BMI in kindergartners. Formation of Food Deserts The evidence presented above suggests that access to healthy food options varies substantially by loc ation (e.g. nationally, regionally, and locally), and that a host of individual, socioeconomic, environmental, biological, and political processes underlie the distribution of healthy food options. As a relatively new field of study, most food access research has focused on establishing the existence (or absence) of food deserts. Placebased evidence has tentatively linked race and SES wi th lack of access to healthy food in certain geographies and a trend is emerging which supports the theory that racial minorities and the poor are more likely in general to live in food deserts. However, t o be perfectly clear, this does not mean that every socially marginalized area is a food desert (see Smoyer Tomic, Spence, & Amrhein, 2006) Furthermore, only a very small proportion of the literature has been dedicated to formation of food deserts, and theories on causation are far from conclusive. Mo re work, both conceptual and quantitative, is needed to fully appreciate the potential 75


causes of food deserts. Bearing that caveat in mind, researchers have postulated several theories that merit examination. First, housing market s egregation, long recognized as form of structural racism and an environmental injustice (see Chapter 2 above), is a prime example of how hegemonic racial formations contribute to the presence of food deserts. In the 1950s, White urbanites began migrating out of inner cities and into newly created suburbs ( Frey, 1979). Retail businesses, including grocery stores and supermarkets, followed leaving racial minorities largely isolated in the urban core without access to essential services (see Zenk et al., 2005) As minorities (pri marily African Americans) eventually made their way to the suburbs, White residents moved further outward to new suburban rings ( Ha nlon, 2009) Grodzins (1969) coined the term White flight to describe the phenomenon which, along with other mechanisms of structural racism (e.g. Jim Crow, discriminatory zoning laws, restrictive covenants, redlining, racial steering), ensured that neighborhoods remained segregated. Notwithstanding the subsequent passage of laws and regulations to counteract discrimination in housing markets, levels of residential segregation in the US have changed little over the past forty years (Adelman, 2004; Charles, 2003). Although Blacks and Hispanics tend to be less affluent than White s, differences in income and SES are insuffici ent to account for the degree of segregation found in housing markets (Iceland, & Weinberg, 2002) which continues to exacerbate inequalities in educational opportunity employment, housing quality, and health status (Williams & Collins, 2001). In terms of food deserts, residential segregation means that racial minorities are concentrated in certain neighborhoods while healthy food options are concentrated in 76


others ( Au chincloss, Riolo, Brown, Cook, & Diez Roux, 2011) Patterns of White flight and subsequent economic disinvestment have transformed the environment in which racial minorities live, work, and play ( Zenk et al., 2005). In perhaps the most comprehensive work of its kind, Kwate (2008) identified four pathways by which residential s egregation induces minority neighborhoods to host unhealthy food options instead of healthy ones. First, concentration of racial minorities in isolated geographic areas means they are more easily targeted by marketers of unhealthy food and beverages whic h are known drivers of diet related disease ( see Grier & Kumanyika, 2008). Second, neighborhood segregation fosters a weak retail climate with an abundance of unskilled, cheap labor, both of which are conducive to the presence of fast and convenience foods. Third, the physical infrastructure in minority neighborhoods is sometimes inferior, making it less attractive to the development of chain stores and supermarkets. Finally, the social stigma of minority areas, along with limited political capital in th e local community, makes it easier for distributors of unhealthy food to locate there. Discriminatory outcomes in t ransportation p lanning also affect local food environments Because food desert neighborhoods lack healthy food options, residents must tra vel farther to reach stores where they can purchase healthy food ( Alwitt & Donley, 1997; Morland et al., 2002 ; Helling, & Sawicki, 2003; Zenk et al., 2005). Yet, the same neighborhoods are often characterized by poor public transportation infrastructure, and more than a quarter of Americans who earn less than $20,000 a year do not own a personal automobile ( Pucher, & Renne, 2003) For public transportationdependent individuals living in food deserts, travelling to another neighborhood to 77


purchase a weeks worth of groceries may involve boarding multiple buses, using an expensive taxi service, or relying on friends and family to get to and from the closest location where they can purchase healthy foods. Furthermore, food is also heavy and not easily transportable. The trip to a distant supermarket for healthy food requires some level of physical strength and stamina to make the journey, and it may be unrealistic to expect food desert residents to travel beyond immediate neighborhood boundaries in search of healthier food options. Other researchers have studied the role of market dynamics in the formation of food deserts. Alkon & Mares (2012), for example, have argued that neoliberal economic policies have failed to account for environmental justice implications in changing food environments There is fleeting empirical evidence at this point to back up the claim. However, it is clear that the US food system has changed dramatically over recent decades, transforming retail food environment s in the process. This evolution in agribusiness has been characterized by c onsolidation and centralization (de localization) of producers and suppliers and large multi national corporations now control of the majority of domestic food production and dis tribution ( K irschenmann, Stevenson, Butt el, Lyson, & Duffy, 2009) Even organic foods, once the sole bastion of the alternative food movement, have been assimilated into the corporate model of food supply ( Johnston, Biro, & MacKendrick, 2009; Northen, 201 1 ). The economies of scale and increased bargaining power available to large retail firms have allowed them to offer the same or similar products at lower prices (Acheson, 1998) which would appear to benefit low income consumers This shortening of the supply chain h as come at a price, however, as researchers have noted environmental 78


injustices at every level of the food system (Gottlieb & Joshi, 2010). For example, farmworkers around the country are still struggling to negot iate a living wage (Little, 2013). Toler, Briggeman, Lusk, & Adams (2009, p. 1272) conclude that (t)he significant changes in agriculture in recent decades, including consolidation and vertical integration have led some to question whether the benefits and costs of these developments have been equally distributed among all participants in the agriculture supply chain Certainly, those unfortunate enough to be living in food deserts might disagree with the statement that th e American system of producing, processing, and marketing food is one of the country's great successes (Taylor, 1997, p. 13). The effect of price on the availability of healthy food options has also been debated in the literature, without much resolution. Studies using average food costs have concluded that low income individuals should be able to afford healthy food based on the USDAs Thrifty Food Plan ( Britten et al., 2006; Cassady, Jetter, & Culp, 2007; Reed, Frazao, & Itskowitz, 2004; S tewart, Hyman, Frazo, Buzby & Carlson, 2011 ). The results of these studies can be misleading, however, because food deserts present an atypical situation where average prices are irrelevant. Nonetheless, even placebased evidence has presented mixed conclusions. Chung, & Myers ( 1999) found that healthy food options, if available at all, come at a significant premium in food deserts. Drewnowski & Specter (2004) assert that, because prices for healthy food options are higher in food deserts, residents substitute less healthy foo d options in an attempt to minimize cost per Kcal. In contrast, other studies have had mixed results ( Andrews Kantor Lino, & Ripplinger 2001; Jetter, & Cassady, 2006) or have found no relationship between price and race or SES (Hayes, 2000; MacDonald & Nelson Jr., 1991; Zenk et al., 2005). 79


Finally, it has been suggested that the lack of access to healthy food options in food deserts is actually a natural supply side result of markets responding to low consumer demand for less healthy food opti ons (see Clarke et al., 2004). The argument is that the supply of healthy food options is low because there is inadequate demand (see Glanz, Resincow, Seymour, Hoy, Stewart, Lyons, & Goldberg, 2007). This line of reasoning appears to be easily countered by the historical account of mass disinvestment by inner city food retailers described above. Further, Zachary, Palmer, Beckham, & Surkan (2013) argue that p urchasing decisions in food deserts do not accurately reflect personal preferences ( e.g. convenience, time constraints, the perception that healthy food doesnt taste as good) In fact, participants in their study had detailed knowledge of and preference for healthy foods, but the obligation to consistently provide food for their families req uired them to apply specific decision criteria which, combined with structural qualities of the supermarket environment, increased unhealthy purchases and decreased healthy purchases ( Zachary et al., 2013, p. 65) In another study, Walker, Block, & Kawachi (2012), found that the preferences of low income food desert residents were similar to those of subjects living within easy access of full service food outlets. For now, Bitler, & Haider (2011) caution that there is insufficient evidence on food deserts at this point to determine more specifically whether causal mechanisms exist, and reiterate the importance of continued research. 80


CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN Data and Methods This study was designed to identify potential food deserts in Tampa Bay, Florida. GIS and statistical analyses were used evaluate the main research hypotheses that spatial access to healthy food is associated with neighborhood concentration of Black and lowSES residents, and that food deserts exist in the study area. Data were collec ted from a variety of sources. Basic cartographic information and 2010 census data were downloaded in shapefile format from the Florida Geographic Database Library (FGDL), a repository for the management and distribution of GIS data housed at the Universi ty of Floridas GeoPlan Center Additional demographic data, used in calculating neighborhood SES, were obtained from the 20062011 American Community Survey 5 year Estimates ( United States Census Bureau, 2011) Tabular address data for supermarkets in t he Study A rea were obtained from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of Food Safety. Address data was verified through online phone directories and company websites, and geocoded to the study area by the Department of G eography at Texas A&M University (Goldberg, 2012).1 Advances in GIS technology present an enormous step forward in the investigation of spatial phenomena. GIS analysis is particularly well suited for environmental justice research because it allows for the integration of multiple data sources (e.g., location of polluting facilities and population characteristics), representation of geographic data in map form, and the application of various spatial 1 Geocoding is the process of transforming address data into x,y map coordinates. 81


analytic techniques (e.g., buffering) for proximity analysis (Chakraborty & Maantay 2011, p. 112 ). In environmental justice research, GIS analysis was initially employed to compare locations of environmental burdens (e.g. hazardous waste facilities; air pollution) with the demographic characteristics of proximate communities. More recently, researchers have begun to adopt comparable GIS techniques to study the interaction between neighborhood demographic attributes and the spatiality of environmental benefits like parks and green space (GordonLarson et al ., 2006; Wolch et al., 2005), healthcare facilities ( Langford & Higg s, 2006), transportation (Chakraborty et al., 1999; Duthie, Cervenka, & Waller, 2007 ), and access to healthy food options ( Austin et al., 2005). In this study, measures of need (socioeconomic deprivation) and accessibility were investigated to test for areas where access to healthy food is potentially problematic. The following questions were specifically addressed: 1. Do food deserts exist in the study area? If so, what are the sp atial characteristics of such neighborhoods? 2. Is race associated with limited access to healthy food? Is socioeconomic status associated with access to healthy food? 3. What are the environmental justice implications of access to healthy food? What policy applications could be used to encourage equitable distribution in food systems? To answer these questions, descriptive maps were created in ArcGIS (Esri, Redlands, C A, v ersion 10.1) showing the relative location of the study area in Florida, the location of supermarkets within the study area, the populations and neighborhoods of concern, and graphical representations of accessibility. Non parametric statistics were calculated using SPSS software ( IBM Corp. SPSS Stati stics for Windows, Version 20.0, Armonk, NY ) to supplement the findings of the GIS investigation. Potential food desert 82


neighborhoods in the study area were identified and mapped, and suggestions for cor rective policy action were formulated. Identifying the Study Area Tampa Bay is used colloquially to refer to urbanized portions of west central Florida surrounding the large natural harbor and estuary system of the same name. However, the term does not follow any officially recognized definition, and can refer to a ny number of administrative and political subdivisions. As such, it was necessary to further refine the study area. The most important distinction to be made is between urban and rural areas. Evidence suggests that significant differences exist between rural and urban food environments and that the environmental justice implications of access to healthy food options a re different for rural and urban populations ( see Bustillos et al. 2009; Dean, & Sharkey, 2011; Liese, Weis, Pluto, Smith, & Lawson, 2007; Ruel, Garrett, Hawkes, & Cohen, 2010) For example, food outlets of all varieties are less common in rural environm ents than in urban ones ( Powell, Slater, Mirtcheva, Bao, & Chaloupka, 2007), and public transportation is rarely a realistic option for food shopping outside of metropolitan areas (see Mjelde et al. 2012). Given that the processes underlying food access are likely different in urban and rural locations, it is logically incongruous to include both types of communities in the same study design. For the above reasons, t he Tampa St. Petersburg Urbanized Area (UA) was selected as a starting point for the study area. The UA, as defined by the 2010 decennial census, is the second most populous Urbanized Area in Florida and the seventeenth most populous in the United States ( United States Census Bureau, 2010) It contains portions of two densely populated urban core counties ( Hillsborough & Pinellas ) along with small portions of two additional counties (Pasco, Polk) Tampa, St. 83


Petersburg, and Clearwater are the largest cities, each with over 100,000 residents ( Florida Legislative Office of Economic and Demog raphic Research, 2011). Twelve additional municipalities and census designated places within the UA have populations over 10,000 residents ( Florida Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research, 2011) There are also large unincorporated areas i n each of the core counties. Considerable demographic variation exists between inner city neighborhoods and outlying suburban/exburban areas, some of which have retained their rural character. Therefore, areas beyond ten miles of Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Clearwater city centers were excluded from the study area. Three additional neighborhoods were excluded from the study area because of inapplicable land use designations (Upper Tampa Bay Park, Tampa International Airport, MacDill Air Force Base). The final study area contains a total population of 1,518,124 spread over roughly 570 square miles. D emographic attributes of the study area are consistent with state and national averages (Table 41). Geographically, the Study Area is located on the west central coast of Florida, USA (Figure 4 1). It is approximately 35 miles across from east to west, and ranges between 15 and 35 miles from north to south. The Gulf of Mexico lies directly to the West. Tampa Bay and Manatee County represent the southern borders. Historically rural but quickly developing Pasco County lies to the north. Hillsborough County ex burbs and large agricultural tracts are to the east. Tampa Bay was selected as focus for thi s project for a number of reasons. As a native of the area, the author is interested in local issues of environmental injustice. 84


Also, the study area is demographically diverse, with a legacy of racial segregation and a poor environmental record in neighborhoods of color ( St retesky, & Lynch, 2002) making it wellsuited for a study of this nature. Most important, the Study Area is representative of many other midsized metropolitan areas in terms of size, population density, demographics, land use patter ns, and prevalence of diet related disease, meaning results are likely robust and can be extrapolated to similar metropolitan areas. Defining Neighborhoods Different spatial units ( e.g. county, ZIP code, census tract, block group) have been used by researchers as a proxy for neighborhood investigations primarily because demographic data is constrained by administrative unit. Such statistically defined areas do not necessarily match resident s perceptions of neighborhood boundaries ( Coulton, Korbin, Chan, & Su, 2001), and unit selection inherently involves some subjectivity. Taquino, Parisi, & Gill (2002, p. 298) argue that the decision about the most appropriate unit of analysis should be conceptually rather than statistically determined and that comm unity is the most important unit of analysis because it holds both legal and social authority to raise concern. However, because of the vast logistical and cost related benefits associated with standardized census data, almost all food desert studies hav e relied on it to some extent The author here follows that lead Accordingly, the relevant question becomes which unit of analysis best represents the attributes of specific neighborhoods for this study. Census tracts are the logical choice for several reasons. First, in a study of a single metropolitan area, smaller units are methodologically superior (Stretesky & Lynch, 1999). ZIP codes are often large enough to include a number of distinct neighborhoods, thus increasing the potential for aggregati on ( Anderton et al., 1994). In contrast, c ensus tracts are small enough in 85


relation to the overall study area to provide a high measure of resolution in analysis, and may more accurately reflect the boundaries of racially, culturally, and socioeconomical ly homogenous neighborhoods. Finally, the use of census tracts is consistent with numerous other food desert studies (see Baker et al. 2006; Block et al. 2004; Bodor et al. 2010a, 2010b; LaVeist, & Wallace Jr., 2000; Lisabeth et al. 2010; Moore & Diez Roux, 2006; Morland et al. 2002 ; Zenk et al. 2006). There are 404 total census tract neighborhoods in the Study Area (225 in Pinellas County and 179 in Hillsborough County). The mean neighborhood area is 2.91 square kilometers (sd = 2.29), with a minimum size of 0.18 km2 and a maximum of 23.78 km2. Mean population is 3,756 persons per neighborhood (sd = 1480.72), ranging from 484 to 7439. Demographic attributes and levels of access for each neighborhood are discussed in further detail below. C haracterizing the Food Environment Supermarkets were chosen as a proxy for access to healthy food options for several reasons. First, they tend to offer a wider variety of healthy food options ( Bodor, Rose, Farley, Swalm, & Scott, 2008; Block, & Kouba, 20 06; Glanz, Sallis, Saelens, & Frank, 2007) at lower prices ( Chung, & Myers Jr, 1999; Kaufman, MacDonald, Lutz, & Smallwood, 1997; Morris, Neuhauser, & Campbell, 1992) than nonchain stores and convenience stores. Second, the presence of supermarkets in a community is associated with higher intakes of fruit and vegetables ( Laraia et al., 2004; Rose & Richards, 2004). Third, better access to full service supermarkets has been linked to lower rates of obesity ( Larson et al. 2009; Liu, Wilson, Qi, & Ying, 20 07; Morland, Diez Roux, & Wing, 2006; Powell, Auld, Chaloupka, O'Malley, & Johnston, 2007) and healthier diets, in general ( Fisher, & Strogatz, 1999; Sloane et al. 2003). Fourth, there 86


is evidence that data on other types of retail food vendors are less reliable ( Glanz, 2009). Fifth, the use of supermarkets as a proxy for access to healthy food options is well es tablished in the literature (see Giang, Karpyn, Laurison, Hillier, & Perry, 2008; Larsen & Gilliland, 2008; Rose & Richards, 2004; Morland et al 2002 ; Smoyer Tomic et al. 2 006 ). Furthermore, as Table 4 2 illustrates, supermarkets dominate the retail food market in the US with the majority of expenditures (63.8%). Other categories of retail food outlet are problematic as a measure of access. Warehouse clubs ( e.g. Sams Club and Costco), for example, can be cost prohibitive for low income individuals and families because of the price of membership ($40 and $55, respectively) F arm ers (including farmers markets), processors, and wholesalers are difficult to track and not necessarily available on a regular basis. Other stores sell a large variety of merchandise ( e.g. hardware, clothing, electronics, and sporting goods), with less t han 50% of their sales from food. These are not technically grocery stores but stores which happen to sell groceries, indicating a high level of variability between locations in the availability of healthy food options. Collectively, home deliveries, convenience stores, specialty food stores, and small groceries represent only about a fifth of retail food expenditures (20.2%). There is evidence that prices are higher (Chung & Myers, 1999) and the range of options ( Glanz, Sallis, Saelens, & Frank, 2007) i s more limited at these types of establishments. Drawing on Zenk et al. (2005), access to healthy food in this study was defined as national supermarket chains with at least ten total outlets, where residents of the study area have access to a full line of healthy food options ( e.g. milk and dairy, bread, fresh 87


fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans and legumes, seeds and nuts, eggs, meat, and seafood). A total of 9 supermarket chains were found in the study area, with 154 stores. Table 43 shows t he breakdown of outlets by brand. A descriptive map was created (Figure 42) showing the location of each supermarket within the Study Area by brand. There are 94 supermarkets in Pinellas County and 60 in Hillsborough County, which is counterintuitive g iven that the population of Hillsborough County is greater by more than 300,000 people (United States Census, 2010). Figure 42 shows that many of the supermarkets are located within close proximity to each other, forming visible groups or clusters in c ertain neighborhoods. At the same time, it appears that other areas (e.g. eastern Hillsborough County, southern and central Pinellas County) have very few, if any, supermarkets. The next chapter presents a multi layered analysis to determine whether the absence of supermarkets in those neighborhoods presents a problem of food access for certain subpopulations. 88


Table 4 1 Study Area Demographics Demographic Study Area Florida USA Population (Thousands) 1,518,124.00 18,801,310.00 3,087,455,380.00 Land area in square miles 570.37 53,624.76 3,531,905.43 Persons per square mile 2,661.63 350.60 87.40 Persons under 5 years .05 06 .07 Persons under 18 years .20 .21 .24 Persons 65 years and over .17 .18 .13 Female persons .52 .51 .51 White persons .75 .79 .78 Black persons .16 .17 .13 American Indian and Alaska Native persons .00 .01 .01 Asian persons .03 .03 .05 Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander persons .00 .00 .00 Persons reporting two or more races .03 .02 .02 Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin .17 .23 .17 White persons not Hispanic .63 .58 .63 89


Figure 4 1 Location of Study Area within the Study Area 90


Table 4 2 Retail Food Sales by Type of Outlet ( Reproduced from USDA, 2011 ) Type of Retailer Market Share Supermarkets .63 8 Warehouse clubs 160 Farmers, processors, and wholesalers .05 9 Other stores .05 5 Home deliveries and mail orders .02 7 Convenience stores .02 4 Specialty food stores .02 3 Small grocery stores .01 4 91


Table 4 3 Number of Stores by Supermarket Chain Supermarket Chain Number of Stores Albertsons 2 Aldi 9 Publix 61 Save A Lot 21 Sweet Bay 18 The Fresh Market 4 Wal Mart 21 Whole Foods 2 Winn Dixie 16 Total 154 92


Figure 4 2 Supermarket Locations 93


CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS Subpopulations of Concern Previous research has shown that access to healthy food is disproportionately problematic in low SES neighborhoods and predominately Black neighborhoods (Alwitt & Donley, 1997; Helling, & Sawicki, 2003; Lewis et al., 2005; Morland et al., 2002; Zenk et al. 2006). The study here is limited to those subpopulations, and other minority groups where not separately examined. T he only other significant minority sub population in the study area is Hispanics, who are relatively even ly distributed throughout the study area. For example even though Hispanic residents outnumber Black residents ( 260,549 vs. 239,163) o nly 2 neighborh oods are predominately (e.g. more than 75% ) Hispanic while 15 neighborhoods are predominately Black. Th is indicates a lower degree of residential segregation for Hispanic subpopulations making race based identification of Hispanic food deserts more tenuous As such, neighborhoods with high proportions of Hispanic residents are not differentiated separatel y here, and fall into both predominately White and racially mixed areas as described below. To determine SES a robust deprivation index (see Messer et al., 2006) was created by scoring each neighborhood based on seven factors commonly associated with socioeconomic status : (1) percentage of public transportation dependent residents, (2) percentage of residents in poverty over the previous 12 months (3) percentage of femaleheaded households, (4) percentage of residents with a bachelor s degree or higher, (5) percentage of residents receiving food assistance, (6) median household income, and (7) the percentage of residents over 65 years old. Data for each 94


neighborhood was collected from the most recently available (20062011) American C ommunity Survey 5 year Estimates ( United States Census Bureau, 2011). The range of v alues for each of the seven variables was divided into terciles with each neighborhood falling into the bottom, middle, or top third of the distribution. All neighborhoods were then allocated an ordinal score for each variable depending on their place in the distribution ( e.g. 0 = bottom tercile, 1 = middle tercile 2= top tercile ) For example, those neighborhoods in the bottom third of the distribution for median household income were allocated a score of 0. Neighborhoods in the middle third received a score of 1, and neighborhoods in the highest third received a score of 2. This process was repeated for all variables. The sum of each neighborhoods scores for all va riables was calculated as its deprivation index score, with scores ranging from 0 (most deprived) to 14 (least deprived) For the next step of the analysis, neighborhoods were delineated into three groups based on deprivation score. Those in the 75 th percentile and above (e.g. a deprivation index score of 10 to 14) were characterized as high SES areas (n = 78) Areas in the middle of the distribution between the 25th and the 75th percentiles (e.g. a deprivation score of 5 to 9) were identified as medium SES (n = 215) Neighborhoods in the bottom quarter of the distribution below the 25th percentile (e.g. a deprivation score of 1 to 4) were classified as low SES (n = 111). Results were mapped in Figure 51. High SES neighborhoods are divided relatively evenly between Counties (Hillsborough = 37, Pinellas = 41). Many high SES neighborhoods are located on the periphery of the study area, particularly in Hillsborough County. Notable clusters of high SES neighb orhoods are visible in south Tampa, northern and Central Pinellas County, 95


and in the area of Upper Tampa Bay Park, where the two counties come together. Not unexpectedly, many of the high SES areas are located in waterfront and beach communities. Medium SES neighborhoods are much less uniformly dispersed, with 143 in Pinellas County and just 72 in Hillsborough County. In Pinellas County, medium SES areas appear to be distributed rather evenly throughout the County, surrounding clusters of both HighSES and Low SES neighborhoods. In contrast, most medium SES areas in Hillsborough County are located outside the central core of the County. Clusters of medium SES neighborhoods are apparent in northwestern, southwestern, and far eastern portions of Hillsbor ough County. Low SES neighborhoods are far more prevalent in Hillsborough County (n = 70) than in Pinellas County (n = 41). Clusters of low SES neighborhoods are prominent on both sides of the Bay. In Pinellas County, large clusters are found in south urban St. Petersburg, central Pinellas County (Lealman area), and southwestern Clearwater. Low SES neighborhoods comprise the majority of central Hillsborough County, where 67 of the 70 total are adjacent. The cluster and outlier analysis tool (from th e ArcGIS spatial statistics toolbox) was use to empirically confirm that neighborhoods are clustered by SES (Figure 5 2) This feature c alculates the Local Moran's I value, z score, p value for each neighborhood, and is based on theoretical work by Anseli n ( 1995) Specifically, neighborhood deprivation index scores were input and clusters were spatially conceptualized using the inverse distance weighted (IDW) method. IDW is an exact interpolator which relies on Toblers (1970) first rule of geography t hat things which are 96


closer together are more similar than things which are further apart. It assumes that localized effects diminish with distance, which makes sense in the case of intense residential segregation. Thus, features closer to each other are weighted more heavily. The calculation was based on Euclidean distance from each neighborhood centroid, which was also used to establish measures of supermarket access in the following section (see Apparicio et al., 2008 for a discussion of various dista nce measurements ) Row standardization was used to improve accuracy and account for potential sampling bias. Four types of significant clusters were found. HighHigh clusters occur where multiple high SES neighborhoods are in close proximity to each oth er. Low High clusters appear where medium and high SES neighborhoods are grouped next to a number of low SES neighborhoods. The single HighLow cluster in eastern Hillsborough County represents a low SES neighborhood surrounded by a group of Middle SES N eighborhoods. Low Low clusters are found where low SES neighborhoods are grouped closely together. The second subpopulation of concern is residents of predominately Black neighborhoods. In Figure 53, neighborhoods were mapped into three categories based on the percentage of Black residents: (1) predominantly White areas with less than 25% Black residents (n = 323), (2) racially mixed (RM) areas with 25% to 75% Black residents (n = 66), and (3) predominantly Black areas with more than 75% Black residents (n = 15). A distinct pattern of residential segregation is obvious (e.g. the results of cluster analysis are virtually identical to Figure 53.). Most of the 15 predominantly Black neighborhoods are clustered in the urban core of south St. Petersburg (n = 7) and east Tampa (n = 6). The two remaining predominantly Black 97


neighborhoods are located in south Tampa and west Clearwater. RM neighborhoods (n = 66) are largely clustered around the Black neighborhoods. Predominantly White neighborhoods (the majori ty of Pinellas County to the north and west of St. Petersburg and the western, northeastern, and far eastern portions of Hillsborough County) radiate outward from the urban core. Descriptive statistics for SES deprivation for the entire Study Area, as well as low SES and predominantly Black subpopulations, are displayed in Table 51. Indicators of socioeconomic deprivation are worse for six of seven categories in low SES neighborhoods than the general Study Area population. Means for public transportat ion dependency, poverty, femaleheaded households, and food assistance are higher. Mean percentage of residents with a college education and median household income are lower. Unexpectedly, the percentage of residents over 65 years old is lower on averag e in the subpopulations than in general (e.g. there are fewer elderly people who may have more difficulty reaching supermarkets). This may due to the fact that Florida attracts more affluent retirees than other parts of the country, meaning that age is po sitively correlated with SES. Predominantly Black neighborhoods, all of which are also low SES neighborhoods, also fared poorly in the deprivation index. Compared to the overall Study Area, the predominantly Black subpopulation had almost four times the rate of public transportation dependency (8.73% vs. 2.23%), more than double the poverty rate (31.56% vs. 12.11%), more than double the rate of single femaleheaded households (57.41% vs. 24.22%), less than one third the rate of residents with a college education (8.15% vs. 26.63%), almost triple the percentage of residents receiving food assistance 98


(34.16% vs. 12.09%), and more than a $20,000 deficit in median household income ($25,597 vs. $46.368.62). Measuring Accessibility One of the most commonly u sed measures of access in food desert research is intra neighborhood store density ( Giang et al. 2008; Morland et al., 2002). The density of healthy food outlets in a geographic range reflects the prevalence and diversity of healthy food options For example, a neighborhood with a density of zero means that residents do not have access to a supermarket, and thus, there is a higher likelihood that the neighborhood is a food desert. Furthermore, while supermarkets are a sufficient proxy for acces s to healthy food options, all supermarkets are not created equal. Some have more variety of healthy food options, while others specialize in discount pricing. In neighborhoods that host one or more supermarkets, lower density means residents have access to a smaller range of those options. Conversely, higher density translates to increased diversity of healthy food options available and a wider range of prices at which those options can be obtained. Density was calculated using a common approach known as the buffer method (see Charreire et al. 2010). First centroids (geographic center points) were created for each census tract in the study area using the featureto point tool in ArcGIS. For increased accuracy, point shapefiles for centroids and s upermarket locations were projected into the same geographic coordinate system (WGS 1984 World Mercator ) using the data management toolset. A 1,000 meter circular buffer polygon was then e stablished around each centroid to represent walkable distance for an average adult (see Larsen & Gilliland, 2008) S upermarket locations within each buffer were then 99

PAGE 100

counted by spatially joining the centroid buffer polygon to the projected supermarket point shapefile. Results are mapped in Figure 54. Less than one quarter (n = 93) of census tracts have at least one supermarket within walking distance (1,000 meters), meaning that more than 75% of census tracts (n = 311) have a supermarket density of zero within walking distance. Only about 5% (n = 19) of neighborho ods have a density greater than one, indicating low diversity of healthy food options (e.g. price and variety) in the Study Area as a whole. Because so few neighborhoods host even one supermarket, density analysis identifies too large a proportion of neig hborhoods to delineate access in a precise and meaningful manner. At best, density analysis shows that neighborhood food environments are unsupportive in a high proportion of neighborhoods. As Charreire et al. (20 10, p. 8) point out using only one meas ure provides a poor description of a given population's accessibility to a particular service: on the other hand, using several different measures allows one to adequately describe the complexity of a population's accessibility to a service. Thus, access was examined using an additional technique; proximity to the nearest supermarket ( see Block, & Kouba, 2006; Burns & Inglis, 2007; Smoyer Tomic et al. 2006; Zenk et al. 2005). Longer travel distances suggest decreased access to healthy food options. If private automobile ownership were universal, distance would perhaps be less clearly linked to accessibility. However, up to 25% of low income households are without a personal vehicle ( Pucher & Renne, 2003), meaning they are dependent on publ ic transit or alternative forms of transportation. Data from the Study 100

PAGE 101

Area clearly show that low SES and predominantly Black neighborhoods are more dependent on public transit than the general population (Table 51). To measure proximity, neighborhood centroids and supermarket locations were again mapped to study area census tracts. Proximity was calculated using the near function in the ArcGIS analysis toolbox to determine the Euclidean distance from each neighborhood centroid to the closest superm arket. Results are displayed graphically in Figure 55 below. Neighborhoods mapped in yellow (n = 93) are within 1,000 meters of the nearest supermarket, indicating that they are probably within walking distance for an average adult ( Jago, Ba ranowski, Baranowski, Cullen, & Thompson, 2007). These areas have high access to healthy food options and are not problematic. Light orange areas (n = 139) represent neighborhoods where the closest supermarket is on the far edge of walking distance between 1,000 m eters and 1,600 meters ( Jago et al., 2007). Some people, particularly the elderly and disabled may have difficulty reaching the closest supermarket, and there is an elevated risk that healthy food options are inaccessible in these locations. These areas were defined as medium access. Dark orange areas (n = 114) are between 1,600 and 2,500 meters, and are not within walking distance of a supermarket. Residents without access to a personal automobile must rely on alternative modes of transportation to reach the nearest supermarket, meaning access is relatively low. Neighborhoods mapped in dark brown (n = 58) are beyond 2,500 meters from the nearest supermarket. These neighborhoods are well out of range of walking distance and have very low access. Pro ximity analysis more clearly differentiates supermarket access at the neighborhood level than does density analysis, and in greater detail. Neighborhoods 101

PAGE 102

were categorically defined as high, medium, low, or very low access, allowing for a more accurate vis ual representation of areas with potential access problems. In general, inner city neighborhoods appear to have better access than suburban and peripheral areas. High access areas are more consistently distributed in Pinellas County than in Hillsborough County. Large groups of low and very low access neighborhoods can be seen in far northern Pinellas County and eastern Hillsborough County. Given the superior descriptive power of proximity analysis, it was used as the primary measure of access in subsequent steps of the investigation. Identifying Potential Food Deserts The key to identifying potential food deserts is linking neighborhoods that (1) suffer from low accessibility and (2) can be characterized as a vulnerable subpopulation (in this case low SE S or predominately Black). Both elements are necessary to establish that food deserts exist as a matter of environmental injustice. Alone, poor access to healthy food invokes questions of distributional fairness and market efficiency, but does not rise t o the level of environmental injustice as defined earlier in this paper. Racial and socioeconomic disempowerment is a fundamental component, if not the very basis, of environmental injustice. Evidence that environmental barriers to healthy living repres ent a significant challenge to ethnic minorities and underserved populations is necessary to prove that poor access violates the principles of environmental injustice (Hilmers, Hilmers, & Dave, 2012, p. 1664). A number of steps were taken to determine wh ich neighborhoods meet both criteria, and whether a general pattern of environmental injustice is apparent. First, proximity was characterized separately for the entire study area, low SES neighborhoods, and predominantly Black neighborhoods (Table 52). For the general 102

PAGE 103

population, mean proximity to the nearest supermarket is 1,640.29 meters (sd = 893.26). Int erestingly, mean proximity ( = 1553.93, sd = 778.93) is closer in low SES neighborhoods than in the general study sample. At 2035.81 (sd = 581.85), mean proximity in predominantly Black neighborhoods is higher than in the general population and other low SES neighborhoods, suggesting that residents must travel further to access the nearest supermarket. A comprehensive map (Figure 56) was created showing each neighborhoods level of supermarket access cross referenced with its SES group For low SES neighborhoods, predominantly Black neighborhoods were mapped separately from racially mixed and predominantly White neighborhoods Sixteen types of neighborhoods were identified (high SES / high access, n = 9; high SES/ medium access, n = 20; high SES/ low access, n = 30; high SES/ very low access, n = 22; medium SES / high access, n = 55; medium SES / medium access, n = 80; medium SES / low access, n = 58; medium SES / very low access, n = 22; low SES (RM, White) / high access, n = 29; low SES (RM, White) / medium access, n = 39; low SES (RM, White) / low access, n = 28; low SES (RM, White) / very low access, n = 14; low SES (Black) / high access, n = 1; low SES (Black) / medium access, n = 3; low SES (Black) / low access, n = 8; low SES (Black)/ very low acc ess, n = 3). With this typology, it is possible to begin visualizing raceand class based differences in local food environments. Low and very low access neighborhoods exist at every level of SES. However, poor access is not usually problematic in med ium and high SES areas (although low SES individuals residing those neighborhoods may have greater difficulty). The key 103

PAGE 104

difference is that residents of medium and high SES neighborhoods can more easily overcome obstacles to accessibility than residents of low SES areas. For example, lower levels of transportation dependency and higher median household income found in those neighborhoods inherently suggest increased mobility ( Murakami & Young, 1997), which translates into better access. Personal automobil e ownership and increased discretionary funds mean that higher SES households can travel further in search of healthy food and afford to pay larger premiums to get it. Hence, by design, the identification of food deserts (and thus environmental injustice) in this study is not solely based on differences in access, but is also a direct product of socioeconomic deprivation. Following that logic, all low SES neighborhoods with either low accessibility or very low accessibility were identified as potential f ood deserts. Predominantly Black, RM, and predominantly White neighborhoods were mapped separately for better visualization of the racial attributes of access (Figure 57). Areas with low access were defined as having high potential to be food deserts, and areas with very low access were defined as having very high potential to be food deserts. In total, 42 neighborhoods were identified as potential food deserts. Of these, eight are disbursed throughout northern Pinellas County (Coalition/Clearwater Air port, Downtown Clearwater, Newport/Ulmerton, South Highpoint, Wilshire Estates), and in far northern and far southern Hillsborough County (Hamners/Sinclair, Palm River/Causeway, Rembrandt Gardens). Groups of two potential food deserts appear in the Lealm an area of central Pinellas County (East Lealman, West Lealman), around Tampa International Airport in western Hillsborough County (West Park, Drew Park), and at the confluence 104

PAGE 105

of the Tampa River and Interstate275 (Old West Tampa, Macfarlane). The remain der of potential food deserts are tightly grouped in east central Hillsborough County (Rogers Park/Live Oak Square, River Grove, Del Rio, Belmont Heights, North Tampa, Tampa Overlook, V. M. Ybor East, V.M Ybor West, College Hills, Highland Pines/Grant Park Forest Hills, South Tampa Heights, Carver City/Lincoln Gardens, Sulpher Springs, Harney, Northeast Tampa, Orient Park/Northview Hills, Florence Villa, Heart of East Tampa, Ybor City, South Nebraska, Rowlett Park) and south Pinellas County (Bartlett Park, Childs Park, Thirteenth Street Heights, Palmetto Park, Cromwell Heights, Jordan Park). As a general trend, potential food deserts in Tampa Bay tend to be located in inner city neighborhoods in south St. Petersburg and central and eastern Tampa, where con centrations of low SES and predominantly Black neighborhoods are also clustered. On average, residents of potential food desert neighborhoods must travel 723 meters further to reach the nearest supermarket than the general population (Table 53). The me an percentage of Black residents and public transportation dependent residents are more than three times higher in potential food deserts. The percentage of individuals living in poverty and persons on food assistance are more than double. The percentage of female headed households is also higher. College graduation level is less than half. Median household income is $16,727 lower. Most important in terms of environmental justice, 11 of 15 (73.33%) predominantly Black neighborhoods in the Study Area ar e either high or very high potential food deserts compared to only 11 of 322 (3.42%) predominantly White areas. Tables 54 and 55 show specific attributes for each high potential and very high potential food desert individually. Residents of these neig hborhoods have the worst 105

PAGE 106

access to healthy food in the Study Area. Particularly concerning are the fourteen low SES neighborhoods with very high potential to be food deserts, three of which are located in Pinellas County (South Highpoint, Cromwell Heights and Jordan Park) and eleven of which are in Hillsborough County (Harney, Northeast Tampa, Orient Park/Northview Hills, Florence Villa, Heart of East Tampa, Ybor City, South Nebraska, Rowlett Park, Palm River/Causeway, Rembrandt Gardens). Three very high potential areas (Heart of East Tampa, Cromwell Heights, Jordan Park) are also predominantly Black. Racially mixed neighborhoods account for ten neighborhoods (Harney, Del Rio, Orient Park, Florence Villa, Palm River, Ybor, South Nebraska, Rembrant Gardens, and Rowlette Park). Only one very high potential food desert (West Park) is predominantly White. Graphical examination shows substantial differences in food access between the general population and potential food desert communities. Mean proximity and socioeconomic deprivation variables were also tested statistically to determine whether significant differences exist between food deserts and nonfood deserts. Using SPSS software, power analysis was run first to confirm that the number of cases was sufficient. Komogorov Smirnov and ShaprioWilk tests (Table 5 6) show that the data violates assumptions of normality (e.g. all variables are significant at the = 0.01 level). Accordingly, nonparametric tests were used for statistical examination. Calculation of Spearmans Rho (Table 57) demonstrates that correlation exists between variables. Percentage of Black Residents (significant at = 05) and SES deprivation index score (significant at = 0 1 ) are both positively associated with proximity, indicating minimum distance to the nearest supermarket increases as percentage of Black residents and 106

PAGE 107

SES deprivation score rise. Percent Black is strongly negatively correlated with SES deprivation index score (significant at = 0 1 ), reaffirming that predominantly Black neighborhoods tend to be more socioeconomically deprived. The Wilcoxon signed rank test a variation of the MannWhitney U methodology, was used to test for significant differences in proximity and socioeconomic variables between the general population and potential food desert neighborhoods (Table 58 ) Like most nonparametric tests, Wilcoxon first ranks categorical data, then compares the distribution of the ranks to a uniform distribution ( Rey & Neuhuser, 2011). The null hypothesis is that mean differences are centered around zero. It is a robust nonparametric analogue to the Students T test ( Rey & Neuhuser, 2011 ) Median proximity is used in lieu of mean proximity as the measure of central tendency because the data is nonnormally distributed ( Rey & Neuhuser, 2011). To run the analysis, neighborhoods were first grouped into categories based on their food desert potential and assigned an ordinal value (nonfood desert = 1, potential food desert = 2). W ilcoxon rank sum analysis was performed iteratively to test for differences between the general population and potential food deserts for proximity, percent Black, and the demographic variables used in calculating deprivation scores. All results were sign ificant ( at =. 0 1 ) confirming that (1) distance to the nearest supermarket is further, (2) percentage of Black residents is higher, and (3) socioeconomic deprivation is worse in potential food deserts Neighborhood size and population were tested as well, but were not significant. F or comparison, two additional types of neighborhoods ( termed oases and enclaves ) were identified. Food oases are l ow SES areas that, unlike food deserts, 107

PAGE 108

have high access to healthy food options (see Raja, Ma, & Yadav, 2008). Figure 58 shows l ow SES ( n = 29) neighborhoods with high access Oases are split evenly between Hillsborough County (n = 14) and Pinellas County (n = 15) Mean proximity to the nearest supermarket is 719 meters (sd = 239.33; see Table 59). Food oases serve as an important reminder that not every socially deprived and racial minority neighborhood is a food desert. There is evidence of actual and perceived differences in purchasing behavior between residents of food deserts and residents of food oases. For example, in a study of Pittsburg, PA, Walker et al. (2011, p. 262) determined that in food oases, factors that influence food buying practices go beyond basic food as a means of survival as observed in the food desert. Short Guthman, & Raskin (2007) note that neighborhoods which may be perceived as food deserts for lacking a supermarket should actually be considered food oases because they host a significant number of smaller, neighborhood grocery stores. Food oases hold promise for identifying the underlying mechanisms that cause certain low SES areas become food deserts while others enjoy relatively high access. The 22 wealthy enclaves, in contrast, are high SES neighborhoods with very low access to healthy food options Mean proximity to the nearest supermarket is over three kilometers ( = 3,472 meters, sd = 1,155.61; see Table 59) Yet access to healthy food is not generally problematic because r esidents of wealthy enclaves are far less constrained by public transportation dependency ( 0.46%), and automobile ownership is nearly universal. Enclave neighborhoods in Pinellas County include Snell / Venetian Isles, Belleair / Belleair Beach, and Country side. In Hillsborough County, 108

PAGE 109

parts of Westchase, Town and Country, Davis Island, South Westshore, Bayshore, New Tampa are enclaves. Median household income is substantial higher than the Study Area as a whole ($72,002 vs. $46,368), and the percentage of Black residents is less than half (7.34% vs. 16.51%). These fortified areas of urban segregation are intentionally compartmentalized from the rest of society (Caldeira, 1996), placing residents, perhaps ironically, further away from essential services like access to healthy food The existence of enclaves speaks more to urban design and general (un)sustainability than it does about food deserts, but serves to reiterate that local food environments are probably more complex than can be determined by simple measures of proximity. 109

PAGE 110

Figure 5 1 SES by Neighborhood 110

PAGE 111

Figure 5 2 Residential SES Clustering 111

PAGE 112

Figure 5 3 Percentage of Black Residents by N eighborhood 112

PAGE 113

Table 5 1 Population Descriptive Statistics from SES Deprivation Index Transdep Poverty Female HH College Over 65 Food Asst MHI All Neighborhoods ( n = 403) Mean 0.0224 0.1211 0.2422 0.2663 0.1743 0.1209 46,369 Median 0.0090 0.0930 0.2182 0.2430 0.1427 0.0903 43,324 SD 0.0381 0.1164 0.1404 0.1516 0.1184 0.1064 17,982 Minimum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0180 0.0104 0.0000 9,113 Maximum 0.3220 0.9420 0.7890 0.8390 0.7416 0.7328 120,156 Low SES ( n = 110) Mean 0.0531 0.2352 0.3914 0.1306 0.1293 0.2427 30,176 Median 0.0400 0.198 0.371 0.1235 0.1128 0.2233 30,137 SD 0.0546 0.1262 0.1407 0.0634 0.0701 0.1112 7,661 Minimum 0.0000 0.064 0.1163 0.018 0.0208 0.0619 9,113 Maximum 0.3220 0.719 0.789 0.318 0.4378 0.7328 46,898 Predominantly Black ( n = 15) Mean 0.0873 0.3156 0.5741 0.0815 0.1118 0.3416 25,597 Median 0.0640 0.3110 0.5813 0.0910 0.1051 0.3203 25,298 SD 0.0609 0.1396 0.0948 0.0418 0.0258 0.1299 7,422 Minimum 0.0070 0.0640 0.4323 0.0180 0.0724 0.1748 9,113 Maximum 0.2100 0.7190 0.7890 0.1570 0.1623 0.7328 38,889 113

PAGE 114

Figure 5 4 Supermarket Density 114

PAGE 115

Figure 5 5 Proximity to Closest Supermarket 115

PAGE 116

Table 5 2 Accessibility by Neighborhood Type Variable Minimum Maximum Mean SD All Neighborhoods (n = 403) Proximity to Nearest Supermarket 96.5716 6734.7116 1640.2983 893.2695 Percentage of Black Residents 0.0030 0.9570 0.1651 0.2151 SES Score 0.0000 14.0000 7.0300 3.5700 Low SES Neighborhoods ( n = 110) Proximity to Nearest Supermarket 96.5716 3864.7412 1553.9335 778.9354 Percentage of Black Residents 0.0200 0.9570 0.3766 0.2759 SES Score 0.0000 4.0000 2.4900 1.1150 Predominantly Black Neighborhoods ( n = 15) Proximity to Nearest Supermarket 985.6991 2978.9486 2035.8193 581.8504 Percentage of Black Residents 0.7650 0.9570 0.8644 0.0631 SES Score 1.0000 4.0000 1.8700 0.8340 116

PAGE 117

Figure 5 6 SES, Black N eighborhoods, and Supermarket Access 117

PAGE 118

Figure 5 7 Potential Food Deserts 118

PAGE 119

Table 5 3 SES Characteristics of All Neighborh oods vs. Potential Food Deserts Mean Median SD Minimum Maximum All Neighborhoods ( n = 404) Proximity 1640.3000 1452.1200 893.2700 96.5700 6734.7100 Black 0.1651 0.0710 0.2152 0.0030 0.9570 Transdep 0.0224 0.0090 0.0381 0.0000 0.3220 Poverty 0.1211 0.0930 0.1164 0.0000 0.9420 FHH 0.2422 0.2182 0.1404 0.0000 0.7890 College 0.2663 0.2430 0.1516 0.0180 0.8390 Abv 65 0.1743 0.1427 0.1184 0.0104 0.7416 Food Asst 0.1209 0.0903 0.1064 0.0000 0.7328 MHI 46369.0000 43324.0000 17982.0000 9113.0000 120156.0000 KmSq 2.9127 2.3308 2.2921 0.1844 23.7807 Pop 3756.0000 3626.0000 1481.0000 484.0000 7439.0000 Potential Food Deserts ( n = 42) Proximity 2363.3100 2247.9200 540.3600 1625.8800 3864.7400 Black 0.5068 0.4840 0.2870 0.0250 0.9320 Transdep 0.0678 0.0535 0.0661 0.0000 0.3220 Poverty 0.2573 0.2575 0.1385 0.0710 0.7190 FHH 0.4373 0.4439 0.1400 0.1524 0.7890 College 0.1292 0.1155 0.0686 0.0180 0.3040 Abv 65 0.2449 0.1057 0.8591 0.0208 5.6733 Food Asst 0.2630 0.2670 0.1198 0.0619 0.7328 MHI 29642.0000 29323.0000 7420.0000 9113.0000 43652.0000 KmSq 3.0043 2.2657 2.3549 0.6555 11.0320 Pop 3595.0000 3391.0000 1504.0000 1203.0000 7084.0000 119

PAGE 120

Table 5 4 High Potential Food Deserts by Neighborhood Potential County Tract Number Approximate Neighborhood Proximity High Hillsborough Census Tract 10.01 Rogers Park/Live Oak Square 2073 High Hillsborough Census Tract 10.02 River Grove/Woodland Terrace 1885 High Hillsborough Census Tract 105.02 Del Rio 2448 High Hillsborough Census Tract 110.03 Hamner's/Sinclair 1654 High Hillsborough Census Tract 18 Belmont Heights/Northview 2120 High Hillsborough Census Tract 2.01 North Tampa 2209 High Hillsborough Census Tract 26 Drew Park 1961 High Hillsborough Census Tract 3 Tampa Overlook 2372 High Hillsborough Census Tract 32 V.M Ybor East 1626 High Hillsborough Census Tract 33 V.M Ybor West 2173 High Hillsborough Census Tract 34 College Hills 2366 High Hillsborough Census Tract 36 Highland Pines/Grant Park 1664 High Hillsborough Census Tract 4.01 Forest Hills 2183 High Hillsborough Census Tract 41 South Tampa Heights 2411 High Hillsborough Census Tract 43 Old West Tampa 1952 High Hillsborough Census Tract 44 MacFarlane 1846 High Hillsborough Census Tract 46 Carver City/Lincoln Gardens 2173 High Hillsborough Census Tract 7 Sulphur Springs 1683 High Pinellas Census Tract 205 Bartlett Park 2287 High Pinellas Census Tract 208 Childs Park 1727 High Pinellas Census Tract 212 13th Street Heights 2332 High Pinellas Census Tract 218 Palmetto Park 1645 High Pinellas Census Tract 246.02 East Lealman 2392 High Pinellas Census Tract 247.03 West Lealman 2108 High Pinellas Census Tract 254.08 Newport/Ulmerton 1925 High Pinellas Census Tract 261.01 North DT Clearwater 2080 High Pinellas Census Tract 266.02 Coalition/Clearwater AP 1905 High Pinellas Census Tract 269.04 Wilshire Estates 1999 120

PAGE 121

Table 5 5 Very High Potential Food Deserts by Neighborhood Potential County Tract Number Approximate Neighborhood Proximity Very High Hillsborough Census Tract 104.02 Harney 3245 Very High Hillsborough Census Tract 105.01 Northeast Tampa 2732 Very High Hillsborough Census Tract 116.05 West Park 2983 Very High Hillsborough Census Tract 120.01 Orient Park/Northview Hills 3865 Very High Hillsborough Census Tract 120.02 Florence Villa 2990 Very High Hillsborough Census Tract 135.01 Palm River/Causeway 3090 Very High Hillsborough Census Tract 35 Heart of East Tampa 2979 Very High Hillsborough Census Tract 38 Ybor 2645 Very High Hillsborough Census Tract 39 South Nebraska 2865 Very High Hillsborough Census Tract 70.02 Rembrandt Gardens 2928 Very High Hillsborough Census Tract 8 Rowlett Park 2904 Very High Pinellas Census Tract 206 Cromwell Heights 2763 Very High Pinellas Census Tract 245.10 South Highpoint 3480 Very High Pinellas Census Tract 287 Jordan Park 2594 121

PAGE 122

Table 5 6 Tests of Distribution Kolmogorov Smirnov Shapiro Wilk Coefficient df Sig. Coefficient df Sig. Proximity 0.098* 403 0 0.897* 403 .000 Percent Black 0.234* 403 0 0.712* 403 .000 SES 0.085* 403 0 0.964* 403 .000 Significant at the .01 level 122

PAGE 123

Table 5 7 Non Parametric Correlation Spearman's rho Proximity Percentage Black SES Score Proximity Coefficient 1 Sig. (2 tailed) Percentage Black Coefficient 0.117* 1 Sig. (2 tailed) 0.018 SES Score Coefficient 0.164** .615 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) 0.001 0.000 Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed). 123

PAGE 124

Table 5 8 Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test of Means Variable General Population ( n = 404) Potential Food Deserts z score p value Proximity 1452.1200 2247.9200 6.711 0.000 Black 0.0710 0.4840 7.693 0.000 Transdep 0.0090 0.0535 6.978 0.000 Poverty 0.0930 0.2575 7.485 0.000 FHH 0.2182 0.4439 7.775 0.000 College 0.2430 0.1155 6.884 0.000 Abv 65 0.1427 0.1057 3.921 0.000 Food Asst 0.0903 0.2670 7.805 0.000 MHI 43324.0000 29322.0000 7.513 0.000 KmSq 2.3308 2.2657 0.154 0.878 Pop 3626.0000 3391.0000 0.731 0.465 124

PAGE 125

Figure 5 8 Oases & Enclaves 125

PAGE 126

Table 5 9 Oases and Enclaves Mean Median SD Minimum Maximum Oases ( n = 29) Proximity 718.8200 760.0600 239.3300 96.5700 988.9100 Black 0.2788 0.2190 0.2451 0.0200 0.9110 Transdep 0.0534 0.0440 0.0524 0.0000 0.2700 Poverty 0.1882 0.1660 0.0862 0.0760 0.5160 FHH 0.3470 0.3214 0.1391 0.1416 0.7390 College 0.1370 0.1360 0.0558 0.0340 0.2290 Abv 65 0.1666 0.1646 0.1057 0.0227 0.4378 Food Asst 0.1916 0.1787 0.0920 0.0780 0.5496 MHI 32042.0000 33068.0000 7049.0000 14002.0000 46898.0000 KmSq 1.9394 1.7170 0.9002 0.5247 4.1002 Pop 3537.0000 3328.0000 1233.0000 1955.0000 6369.0000 Enclaves ( n = 22) Proximity 3472.1400 3009.3500 1155.6100 2518.4000 6734.7100 Black 0.0734 0.0650 0.0669 0.0040 0.2060 Transdep 0.0046 0.0000 0.0068 0.0000 0.0200 Poverty 0.0385 0.0420 0.0250 0.0000 0.0880 FHH 0.1408 0.1233 0.0833 0.0302 0.4191 College 0.4503 0.4520 0.1109 0.2260 0.6230 Abv 65 0.1508 0.1214 0.1182 0.0220 0.5322 Food Asst 0.0299 0.0290 0.0213 0.0000 0.0737 MHI 72002.0000 71885.0000 19721.0000 43324.0000 115905.0000 KmSq 3.4261 3.3346 1.6905 1.0777 7.2275 Pop 3730.0000 3452.0000 1493.0000 1020.0000 6513.0000 126

PAGE 127

CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS AND CONCLUS IONS Results The first research question asks whether the percentage of Black residents in a neighborhood is associated with supermarket access. T he results of the analysis suggest a clear negative association. On average, neighborhoods with more than 75% Black residents are more than 700 meters further from the nearest supermarket than neighborhoods in general. Spearmans rho indicates a significant positive correlation (at = 05) between the percentage of Black residents and distance to the nearest supermarket. If race were not meaningfully associated with the distribution of supermarkets, one would expect predominantly Black areas to share similar food access characteristics with other low SES neighborhoods. This is not the case. Predominantly Black neighborhoods have significantly worse access than other low SES areas. Almost 75% (11 of 15) of predominately Black neighborhoods have poor or very poor access compared to 38.18% percent (42 of 110) of ot her low SES neighborhoods and 42.32% (171 of 404) of neighborhoods overall. Of the 14 very high potential food deserts, 13 are at least 25% Black, meaning that almost all of the neighborhoods with the worst level of supermarket access (e.g. the nearest st ore is beyond 2.5 kilometers) are inhabited by a larger percentage of Black residents than would be expected on average. The answer to the second research question whether low neighborhood SES is associated with supermarket access, is less clear The e vidence suggests an inverse relationship, meaning that low SES n eighborhoods actually have slightly better access on average than the general population (e.g they are 86.36 meters closer on average 127

PAGE 128

to the nearest supermarket). However, residents of low S ES neighborhoods which do suffer from poor access are likely less able to cope because of socioeconomic deprivation (e.g. higher rates of dependency on public/alternative forms of transportation, lower median income, less political/social capital ) In other words, there is sufficient evidence to deduce that low SES neighborhoods have better supermarket access in general, but it is still reasonable to conclude that residents of those low SES neighborhoods suffering from poor access face a disparate environm ental burden in terms of accessing supermarkets. The final research question asks whether food deserts defined as neighborhoods that are predominantly Black or low SES and characterized by poor access to supermarkets are present in the study area. D espite high levels of variability between local food environments, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that access to healthy food is problematic in certain areas of urban Tampa Bay. More than 10% of neighborhoods (42 of 404 total) with a total popul ation of 150,996 residents were identified as potential food deserts. Large swaths of the urban core are without immediate geographic access to a supermarket. This pattern is what Smoyer Tomic et al. (2006, p. 319) refer to as the systemic persistence o f unsupportive local food environments in the inner city. It is possible that alternative (nonsupermarket) sources of healthy, affordable, and culturally affordable food exist in some potential food deserts. It is also highly likely that public transit systems are able to ameliorate the problem for a portion of residents. Nevertheless, if even a fraction of people living in these neighborhoods are affected by limited access to healthy food, the food desert 128

PAGE 129

phenomenon would still pose an unacceptable he alth risk to affected communities and the region as a whole. It is also apparent that r egional differences exist in levels of food access between administrative/political units. For example, Hillsborough County has fewer total census tracts ( n = 179) th an Pinellas County ( n = 225). Yet, it hosts more than twice as many potential food deserts (29 vs.13). Also, more potential food deserts ( n = 33) fall within municipal city boundaries than in unincorporated areas ( n = 9), which is an intuitive result given that inner city neighborhoods are usually older, established, and centrally located. Together, east central Tampa and south St. Petersburg host approximately half (1821 depending on the method of delineation) of all food deserts in the Study Area. From a policy application perspective, corrective justice efforts aimed strategically at just two areas of concentrated poverty have the potential to change food access dynamics for a large portion of urban Tampa Bay. Discussion The results of this stud y concur with previous findings which suggest that food access is problematic in certain communities (Alwitt & Donley, 1997; Helling, & Sawicki, 2003; Morland et al., 2002). Two subpopulations residents of low SES and predominantly Black neighborhoods have been identified as particularly vulnerable to food access problems by previous food access research. G raphical investigation show ed a high degree of residential clustering for both subpopulations. Access was estimated using large, chain supermarket s as a proxy for healthy food The density of stores within 1000 meters and proximity to the nearest supermarket were calculated from each neighborhood centroid. Both calculations presented similar results. Proximity, however, proved to be a more precis e measure of access, and was mapped 129

PAGE 130

against neighborhood demographic characteristics to provide a comprehensive map of local food environments. Low SES and predominantly Black neighborhoods with low or very low access were identified as potential food des erts. Descriptive statistics were generated, and Wilcoxon rank sum testing revealed significant differences in access and demographic characteristics amongst food deserts and nonfood deserts. For comparison, two additional types of food landscapes (oases and enclaves) were evaluated. Cross sectional studies like this one are well suited to identify minority groups facing barriers to community level environmental benefits. However, they are limited in their ability to establish causal mechanisms. Hence, theories of formation are difficult to apply to this study without additional data and analysis. At least one viable interpretation for the existence of food deserts is observable here, though. I t appears that potential food deserts in Tampa Bay are, at least partially, a consequence of discriminatory housing markets. The tight clustering of predominantly Black neighborhoods in the central urban core (e.g., South St. Petersburg and east central Tampa ) is a product of intense residential segregation, whi ch has been implicated as a key factor in the formation of food deserts by other studies ( see Kwate, 2008; Zenk et al., 2005). The concentration of low SES and predominantly Black neighborhoods in a relatively small geographic is likely acting as a barrier to supermarket access here, as well. The causes of residential segregation are still widely debated, as are the methodologies by which to best measure segregation patterns (Massay, 2012). It is clear, however, that structural racism plays an important part, which leads back to the discussion of food deserts as an environmental injustice. 130

PAGE 131

It is well established that local environments play a part in the health and wellbeing of neighborhood residents. Macintyre (2007, p. 33) observes that heal th and health related behaviors tend to be poorer in more disadvantaged areas even after controlling for individual characterist ics and have been associated with a broader idea that environmental characteristics in poorer areas are generally more detrimental to health and healthy living. The environmental justice movement formed out of concern for such disparate class and racebased health outcomes related to the siting and location of polluting facilities. Several early, highprofile studies proved that racial minorities and the poor are subject to a disproportionate share of environmental hazards (USGAO, 1983; UCC, 1987; Bul lard 1990). Since then, a unique environmental justice master frame has been established which also affirms that the same communities also often lack access to community level environmental benefits like food and green space, which can be just as detrimental as exposure to pollutants. In response, a number of commentators have explicitly recognized food deserts as an issue of environmental justice (see Alkon, 2008; Gottlieb & Fisher, 1996; Hilmers et al., 2012) thus expanding the traditional environment al justice agenda of where we live, work, and play to include where we work, live, playand eat (Gottlieb, 2009). Taylor, Poston, Jones, & Kraft (2006, p. s51) for example, state that t he unfair and disproportionate distribution of health promoting features among various communities and the consequent disease burden are comparable to the unfair and disproportionate distribution of hazardous waste landfills that sparked the environmental justice movement This is a logical argument given that the quality of food available is as important to long term neighborhood health as the quality of air or water. 131

PAGE 132

From a distributional perspective, the environmental justice frame is well suited to describe the existence or absence of food deserts. A s in the ca se of hazardous waste facilities, poor neighborhoods and communities of color in food deserts are at greater risk of adverse health outcomes produced by the inequitable distribution of healthy and unhealthy food options. The methodologies developed to doc ument disproportionate environmental burdens are equally adept at illustrating the absence of environmental benefits. Theoretically, food deserts are a product of same underlying social processes (e.g. white flight and residential segregation, concentrati on of poverty, the resource gap left by skewed transportation planning, tacit approval by the state) that systematically enforce hegemonic racial hierarchies and produce other inequities ( see Brulle & Pellow, 2006) Food access can therefore be examined e ffectively by the same trandisciplinary environmental justice master frame one which links concepts such as racial oppression with labor market and environmental experiences, health, and environmental degradation in one frame that expresses the immediac y and magnitude of the problem (Taylor, 1997, p. 523). In the case of Tampa Bay, and by extension other urban areas with similar pattern of residential segregation and food access problems there is a very clear risk of environmental injustice vis vis food deserts. Proving the extent of the problem definitively will take further community based research. It is likely, however, that policy action is needed. The next section provides some insight into what form corrective justice initiatives might look like. Policy Recommendations The results of this study show that distributional inequities likely exist in almost three quarters of predominantly Black neighborhoods and al most half of all low SES neighborhoods indicating the need to formulate measures of procedural and corrective 132

PAGE 133

justice. On their own, individual based efforts aimed at reducing obesogenic environments have met with limited success (see Egger & Swinburn, 1997; Lee, Harris, & GordonLarson, 200 9; Nonas, Matte, Chideya, & Frieden, 2009) highlighting the importance of macrolevel food access policy Lang, & Caraher (1998, p. 203) argue there should be less emphasis on [personal food choices] and more on access to an affordable source of healthy food. There is little point in encouraging low income consumers to eat more healthily if their district has inadequate local food suppliers and if shops which do offer a choice are located inconveniently for socially disadvantaged groups such as s ingle parents, women, the elderly, disabled individuals and the poor who tend to have worst access to cars and transport. Such c ommunity level policy interventions aimed at increasing retail sources of healthy food in the UK have shown progress in modifyi ng consumption patterns in food desert communities (Wrigley, Warm, & Margetts, 2003). Yet the dialogue on food access has been generally absent from the field of planning ( Pothukuchi, & Kaufman, 2000). Whereas governmental involvement in the siting of other environmental benefits (e.g. parks, healthcare facilities) is relatively intense, the siting of food distribution has been almost entirely left up to the market. This is beginning to change, however, as planning professionals realize the importance of equity concerns in food systems research, wherein localization has become an important focus Advocates of localization imagine community food systems that are decentralized, environmentally sound over a long timeframe, supportive of collective rat her than only individual needs, effective in assuring equitable food access, and created by democratic decisionmaking (Anderson, & Cook, 1999, p. 141 ). There is a strong argument that creating equity in food systems depends on the ability to counter the hegemony of the prevailing global industrialized food system through re localization efforts ( Campbell, 2004) The theoretical underpinnings on how to get there 133

PAGE 134

are less clear, as the very meaning of local is inconsistently interpreted by consumers ( Adams & Adams, 2011). One commonly cited approach is community based agriculture (CBA), such as farmers markets, urban gardens, community supported farming initiatives, and cooperatives ( Allen, FitzSimmons, Goodman, & Warner, 2003; Feenstra, 1997, 2002; Hinrichs, 2000; Macias, 2008) Some CBA enterprises, particularly f armers markets, have begun accepting food assistance benefits (SNAP, WIC) with the goal of boosting healthy food access for low SES residents (Young, Karpyn, Uy, Wich, & Glyn, 2011). Ho wever, these initiatives are not without challenges, and such projects often fall short of stated goals ( Dowler & Caraher, 2003). For example, point of sale technology is required to process cardbased electronic benefits transfers for food assistance pro grams. When that technology is unavailable or limited, famers market programs designed to attract low SES shoppers are less effective ( Buttenheim, Havassy, Fang Glyn, & Karpyn, 2012). Additionally, w hile nonprofit organizations and publicly funded pr ograms can facilitate the transfer of essential knowledge, space, soil, water, seed, and tools, they do not necessarily generate sufficient interest to justify the effort or expense. Guthman (2008, p. 431), for instance, finds that attempts to interject u rban agricultural projects into disadvantaged communities reflect whitened cultural histories, such as the value of putting ones hands in the soil and that such projects often lack resonance in the communities in which they are located. Hu, Acosta, M cDaniel, & Gittelsohn, (2013) note other structural (e.g. price, convenience, lack of variety), sociocultural (e.g. perception that healthy foods taste bad, unfamiliarity with cooking techniques), and 134

PAGE 135

organizational (e.g. lack of awareness, distrust of out siders, disbelief in long term project viability) barriers to local buy in. Moreover there is substantial variation in the degree that individual projects engage in environmental justice goals versus mainstream environmentalism values of ecological sustainability ( Alkon, 2008) So what steps can be taken to supplement community based agriculture and fill food access gaps in underserved communities? Supermarkets and large food retailers which are likely to continue supplying the bulk of urban food sal es into the foreseeable future should be seen as part of the solution rather than simply the source of the problem. A more just and equitable system of food access will almost certainly not be accomplished through small scale urban agriculture projects alone, but by bringing public institutions and food service corporations into the project for a local, sustainable food system (Friedmann, 2007). Moreover, the dichotomy between major retailers on one hand and doit yourself community agriculture on the other is a false one. Small, independent, full service food suppliers have an important role to play in food deserts ( Short et al. 2007) The key is to encourage an inclusive and diverse network of interrelated heal thy food options using creative resolutions which increase food access and emphasize local participation and leadership. A number of tangible steps can be taken to improve food access in vulnerable areas ( see Table 61). This strategy intimates that food accessibility and food systems, in general, are brought under the umbrella of comprehensive planning regimes. One important benefit of comprehensive planning is that it minimizes differences between municipal and local governments in the same metropolit an area ( Zenk et al. 2005). Planning is also key in removing barriers to economic redevelopment like aging infrastructure, high operational 135

PAGE 136

costs, and the negative stigma of operating in low SES and racial minority neighborhoods ( Zenk et al. 2005). Fin ancial considerations (e.g. tax and impact fee abatement), which can be tied to local hiring and sourcing, are a strong incentive for suppliers to relocate in target areas ( Muller, Tagtow, Roberts, & MacDougall, 2009) Planners also tend to be adept at gr ant writing and administration, and can use their technical prowess to leverage redevelopment projects through public private partnerships (see Giang et al. 2008) The idea of financing healthy food access through a tax on junk food is gaining traction and should be explored further ( Yaniv, Rosin, & Tobol, 2009) A measure of procedural justice can be enforced by adding food access topics to public meeting agendas. These discussions can be moderated by food advisory boards (akin to NEJAC ) comprised of interested community members, advocacy networks, grower/producers, public health experts, who advise elected officials on matters related to food. Data monitoring, evaluation and integration of programs, and adaptation of policies are other important planning functions which would likely add value to public participation in food access programs ( Pothukuchi, & Kaufman, 2000). One powerful tool that can be used to interject equity concerns into the realm of food access is zoning and land use law. Legal regimes which expressly include equity concerns are essential to the creation of rights based food systems ( Anderson, 2008). Specifically, regulation can be eased or tightened to encourage redevelopment of stores offering healthy options in disadvantaged neighborhoods ( Wilson, Hutson, & Mujahid, 2008) or to discourage retailers of unhealthy products (e.g. fast food, liquor stores) from entering those markets through maximum density limits or outright moratori a ( Ashe, 136

PAGE 137

Feldstein, Lee, & Ransom, 2007). Ma ndatory inclusionary zoning clauses have the potential to cure some of the root foundations of inequitable food access by reducing sprawl, increasing residential integration and affordable housing opportunities, and promoting mixed use development (Lerman, 2006). Reversal of meal limitation ordinances and other laws that create zones of exclusion for homeless and hungry populations would be a cogent starting place for policy reform ( Brankroft, 2012). Education is another requisite part of planning for food accessibility. Physical access to healthy food options is meaningless without corresponding access to information. Farm to school programs, which generally include an educational component, have shown promise to revitalize local food systems while improving the health of children ( Allen & Guthman, 2006; Izumi, Alaimo, & Hamm, 2010; Winston, 2011). Educators and administrators can be an effective part of the solution by agreeing to limit the range of junk food choices available to students in cafeterias and vending machines, and adding food science courses to curricula ( Muller et al. 2009). In the UK, strategic initiatives to increase access to healthy food have included talks, workshops and courses for community groups aimed at healthy eating/cooki ng ( Reisig & Hobbiss, 2000). Agricultural extension programs, which tend to focus on rural issues, can be expanded or reinvented to play a larger role in local and regional urban food access projects. Community colleges and technical schools are natural conduits for information flow in local communities (Wood, 2010), and should play a vital part in the dissemination of food education material to the general public. Additional work and research are needed to integrate nutrition educators into the discourse on food access ( Hamm & Bellows, 2003). 137

PAGE 138

Grassroots advocacy represents an essential link between the public and the planning community. Social movement theorists have invested a great deal of effort examining alternative food movements ( see Jarosz, 2000, 2008; Lockie, & Kitto, 2000; Selfa, & Qazi, 2005), which Campbell (2004) divides into five following groups based on core values, t ime horizon, scale, sources of authority, focus, and goals : (1) the emergency food movement (including anti hunger advocates, soup kitchens, food pantries, and food banks), (2) the community food security movement (including urban agriculturalists, the public health community, and other national policy organizations), (3) the sustainable agriculture movement (including diversified farming operations; organic farmers; natural food stores, coops, and other retailers), (4) Food citizenry (including food justi ce, food sovereignty, and food democracy), and (5) food system bridgers and planners (who focus on economic viability, environmental sustainability, social equity, and civic participation). This type of advocacy has, in fact, been at the core of the env ironmental justice movement for decades. Despite some deep philosophical differences amongst different schools of thought, activist groups have an important role to play in the struggle for equitable access to healthy food options and are especially impor tant to recognition and procedural justice. Specific advocacy imperatives from Muller et al. (2009) include reforming farm and agricultural bills account to end subsidization of unhealthy foods and to account for urban food access, establishing a minimum percentage of locally sourced purchases for public entit ies prohibiting direct marketing of unhealthy foods to children and minorities, reconfigur ing public food assistance programs to include alternative sources of healthy food (e.g. farmers markets, co mmunity supported agriculture, urban gardens, etc), and 138

PAGE 139

ensuring that food labeling rules require clear and unambiguous display of nutritional standards and product origin. The policy recommendations offered in this section are aimed at bringing healthy food sources into neighborhoods which lack immediate access. Ideally, the long term focus of policy efforts should be on building interconnected, walkable communities that account for equity in all aspects of society This process will undoubtedly be lengthy and political in nature. In the meantime, short term solutions must be tenable, multidisciplinary, and h olistic because no singular answer is sufficient to address all of the moving parts of the problem Reducing instances of diet driven disease is paramount to public health, but cannot be accomplished without addressing the spatial context of food systems. Research like this dissertation can inform food access such policy solutions but only if decision makers are willing to account for environmen tal justice concerns Limitations and Potential Research Directions This project has some limitations which provide direction for future research endeavors. For example, an evaluation of public transportation systems and pedestrian infrastructure, both which are at the crux of the environmental justice dialogue, would have been beneficial to include here. GIS network analysis can be used to estimate travel times to calculate travel time for public transportation and walking. These techniques can provide a more nuanced measurement of access; however, they are heavily data dependent. At the time of the study, reliable GIS data on pedestrian infrastructure and public transit systems were not available for the entire Study Area. In cases that are not cons trained by data limitations, network analyses and similar metrics 139

PAGE 140

can be powerful tools that link walkability and public transit ridership with aspects of the built environment that encourage or discourage access to healthy food. Another limitation, fair ly common to food desert research, is that supermarkets were used as a proxy for access to healthy food options. In reality, neighborhood food environments may contain dependable, alternative sources of healthy food. Inability to directly measure individual store/market attributes (e.g. availability, price, variety) reduces the certainty of results. A small handful of contemporary studies have attempted to overcome data deficiencies by developing unique measurement protocols for evaluating the availabili ty and variety of healthy food options. Bodor et al. 2008, for example, created an accessibility model based on linear shelf space. Block & Kouba ( 2006) and Hayes ( 2000) incorporated cost criteria with market basket metrics drawn from the USDA Communit y Food Assessment Handbook and the Consumer Price Index, respectively ( also see Jetter & Cassady, 2006) Bake r et al. (2006) developed a unique audit tool including items from USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals Glanz, Sallis, Saelens, & F rank (2007, p. 284) included a quality indicator to determine the acceptability of produce based on the majority of a given type of fruits or vegetables being clearly bruised, old looking, overripe, or spotted. Establishing a paradigmatic technique that encompasses multiple measurements of accessibility is a primary goal for future research. Additionally, there is still debate over how to best define neighborhoods. Here, census tracts were used here to approximate neighborhood boundaries. Others have used ZIP code level data (Lewis et al., 2005), census blocks ( Galvez et al., 2008) block groups ( Sharkey, & Horel, 2008) and multiple foreign equivalents ( Donkin, Dowler, 140

PAGE 141

Ste venson, & Turner, 1999; Pearce et al., 2007 ; Smoyer Tomic et al., 2006) It appears clear, however, that administrative units do not necessarily equate with resident perceptions of neighborhoods ( Coulton et al. 2001; Taquino et al., 2002). In a comparative study of GIS based vs. perceptionbased neighborhood characterization, Moore, Diez Roux, & Brines (2008) found that the two are associated, but not identical. The authors suggest that using a combination of different types of measures (e.g. GIS with neighborhood perception surveys) may yield a more valid picture of the local food environment ( Moore, Diez Roux, & Brines, 2008 ). Furthermore, geographic access is just one component of many in an equitable and healthy food system. A host of constraints likely drive individual consumption behaviors. Bitler & Haider (2011), for example, emphasize the economic forces underlying the location of healthy food sources ( e.g. increased costs of operating in low income areas, p hysical infrastructure, landuse laws and zoning), as well as demandside variables ( e.g. personal preference, time constraints, convenience) which affect individual consumption decisions. Others have noted the importance of social and cultural aspects of diet ( Kumanyika, 2008; Kwate, 2008; Odoms Young, Zenk, & Mason, 2009). It is clear that there is a need to improve our understanding of such a relationship between local environments, purchasing and diet behaviours and the local population's health status ( Apparicio et al., 200 7, p. 17). Charreire et al. (2010, p. 1782) argue that (t)he ideal study of access to food outlets would appear to be one that associ ates all dimensions related to accessibility: proximity, diversity, availability, affordability (cost) and perception, with the term diversity referring to the types of food outlets and availability referring to the food supply at the food outlets. A s 141

PAGE 142

methodologies continue to develop, it will be possible to develop a clearer understanding of food systems in a given location. Generalization of results across food desert studies and other environmental justice research represents another ch allenge. Divergent methods contravene attempts to compare findings in an empirical fashion. Some highquality review articles have attempted to reconcile discrepancies in research design ( Beaulac et al., 2009 ; Charreire et al., 2010; Odoms Young et al., 2009; Walker, Keane, & Burke 2010), but have not resolved all of the issues. Beyond the methodological barriers, variation in food environments makes identifying macrolevel trends a formidable problem. Additionally, most investigations to date have been crosssectional in nature, making it difficult to extricate minutiae on specific subpopulations and to account for temporal variations in accessibility within the same study area. Future studies would benefit from multi level and longitudinal examinatio n ( Larson et al., 2009). Perhaps the most notable limitation of this and other environmental justice research is the lack of an established causal link between race/ class and adverse environmental outcome. Despite evidence documenting the existence of food deserts, as was found here in both predominantly Black and low SES neighborhoods, there remains a critical gap in our knowledge of underlying causal mechanisms. It is unclear whether food deserts, in general, occur directly because of race/class or w hether, like other environmental problems in underserved communities, limitations in food access are a manifestation of other systematic inequalit ies Either way, there is a strong argument that lack of access to healthy foods in disadvantaged communities is a prototypical environmental injustice which can be just as devastating to communities as 142

PAGE 143

traditional EJ issues like excess pollution, poor quality housing, or lack of green space. Ultimately, and a more nuanced understanding of food deserts and their underlying causes is dependent on further research. Many of explanatory constraints inherent this research are a result of data limitations With enhanced study design, a t least some of these deficiencies can be overcome. Direct observational research is needed to more clearly link limitations in food access with race, SES, purchasing/consumption behaviors, siting decisions, economic drivers, procedural inadequacies, and adverse health outcomes. Appendix C is a model food access survey that can be used as a starting point to answer some of these questions Conclusions The field of environmental justice is concerned with equitable treatment of communities and individuals in environmental matters. Researchers have developed an advanced body of evidence showing that race and SES are strongly associated with environmental outcomes. In recent years, the focus of environmental justice has expanded to include new populations and problems, particularly in the area of access to community level environmental benefits. One of the most important of these benefits is healthy food, which essential to life itself and a critical component of any just and sustainable community. A consensus is growing amongst researchers that lack of access to healthy food is disproportionally problematic for members of low SES and racial minority communities a phenomenon which threatens to exacerbate rates of diet driven disease. This dissertation presents a timely investigation of food access in Tampa Bay, Florida using a mixtur e of GIS and statistical methodologies. Results confirm that more than a third of low SES neighborhoods and almost three quarters of predominantly Black 143

PAGE 144

neighborhoods in the Study Area have low or very low access to a full service supermarket, clearly indicating potential for environmental injustice which merits further examination. These findings are compatible with the results of previous studies showing that local food environments are unsupportive, and that food deserts are likely to exist in vulnerable subpopulations. All primary o bjectives of this exploratory investigation were accomplished, including (1) analysis of the current state of environmental justice research, ( 2 ) the creation of a comprehensive GIS database mapping supermarket locations against demographic neighborhood characteristics ( 3) empirical testing of race based and/or classbased disparities in food access are present in the study area, ( 4 ) formulation of policy recommendations for corrective action, and (5) identification of limitations and avenues for future research. However, additional research is needed to determine the full scope of the problem, to further distinguish areas with food access issues, and to better establish whether a causal relationship exists between race, class, and food deserts. Still, the insight gleaned from this study elicits further evidence of the food access problems facing this nation. For researchers and policy makers, the challenge ahead is to reinvent food systems in ways that encourage heal thy eating patterns across society, regardless of race and socioeconomic status. The complex set of problems involved with this task can only be overcome through a concentrated, holistic, and multifaceted effort to improve access to healthy food in vulner able communities. Integrated approaches that address individual, cultural, social, environmental, economic, and political barriers to healthy eating are critical for success, and should expressly include environmental and 144

PAGE 145

social justice goals. With strat egic interventions based in equality, increased access to healthy food options can help slow the inertia of diet driven disease in low income and racial monitory communities and promote healthy eating habits for all. 145

PAGE 146

Table 6 1 Policy Recommendations Food Access Policy Recommendations Offer tax incentives and impact fee waivers for healthy food suppliers willing to relocate in disadvantaged areas Improve physical infrastructure in target neighborhoods Tie incentives to local hiring and sourcing Apply for community block group development grants Leverage funding for the development of healthy food initiatives through public private partnerships Improve nutritional labeling Encourage residential integration through affordable, mixed use development Add food discussions to public meeting agendas Develop farm to school programs that include strong education components Create a maximum density threshold for fast food establishments Advocate for well balanced farm and agricultural bills that expressly include environmental justice concerns Create food advisory boards comprise d of community members, growers/ producers, public health experts, etc Subsidize healthy food options through the establishment of a "junk food" tax Invest in public transportation systems that serve neighborhoods equitably Support minority ownership of establishments th at offer and serve healthy foods Plan future development for interactive, walkable communities Moderate zoning and land use regulations to promote economic development in food deserts Reconfigure public food assistance programs to include urban ag riculture programs and farmers' markets Partner with land grant universities and agricultural extension agencies Terminate meal limit ordinances targeting homeless and hungry populations Collect data, monitor program results, and adapt policies accordingly

PAGE 147

APPENDIX A PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WE, THE PEOPLE OF COLOR gathered together at this multinational to begin to build a national and international movement of all peoples of color to fight the destruction and taking of our lands and communities, do hereby reestablish our spiritual interdependence to the sacredness of our Mother Earth; to respect and celebrate each of our cultures, languages and beliefs about the natural world and our roles in healing ourselves; to ensure environmental justice; to promote economic alternatives which would contribute to the development of environmentally safe livelihoods; and, to secure our political, economic and cultural liberation that has been denied for over 500 years of colonization and oppression, resulting in the poisoning of our communities and land and the genocide of our peoples, do affirm and adopt these Principles of Environmental Justice: 1) Environmental Justice affirms the sacredness of Mother Earth, ecological unity and the interdependence of all species, and the right to be free from ecological destruction. 2) Environmental Justice demands that public policy be based on mutual respect and justice for all peoples, free from any form of discrimination or bias. 3) Environmental Justice mandates the right to ethical, balanced and responsible uses of land and renewable resources in the interest of a sustainable planet for humans and other living things. 4) Environmental Justice calls for universal protection from nuclear testing, extraction, production and disposal of toxic/hazardous wastes and poisons and nuclear testing that threaten the fundamental right to clean air, land, water, and food. 147

PAGE 148

5) Environment al Justice affirms the fundamental right to political, economic, cultural and environmental self determination of all peoples. 6) Environmental Justice demands the cessation of the production of all toxins, hazardous wastes, and radioactive materials, and that all past and current producers be held strictly accountable to the people for detoxification and the containment at the point of production. 7) Environmental Justice demands the right to participate as equal partners at every level of decisionmaking, including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement and evaluation. 8) Environmental Justice affirms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy work environment without being forced to choose between an unsafe livelihood and unemployment. It also affirms the right of those who work at home to be free from environmental hazards. 9) Environmental Justice protects the right of victims of environmental injustice to receive full compensation and reparations for damages as well as quality health care. 10) Environmental Justice considers governmental acts of environmental injustice a violation of international law, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on Genocide. 11) Environmental Justice must recognize a s pecial legal and natural relationship of Native Peoples to the U.S. government through treaties, agreements, compacts, and covenants affirming sovereignty and self determination. 12) Environmental Justice affirms the need for urban and rural ecological pol icies to clean up and rebuild our cities and rural areas in balance with nature, honoring the 148

PAGE 149

cultural integrity of all our communities, and provided fair access for all to the full range of resources. 13) Environmental Justice calls for the strict enforcement of principles of informed consent, and a halt to the testing of experimental reproductive and medical procedures and vaccinations on people of color. 14) Environmental Justice opposes the destructive operations of multi national corporations. 15) Environmental Justice opposes military occupation, repression and exploitation of lands, peoples and cultures, and other life forms. 16) Environmental Justice calls for the education of present and future generations which emphasizes social and environment al issues, based on our experience and an appreciation of our diverse cultural perspectives. 17) Environmental Justice requires that we, as individuals, make personal and consumer choices to consume as little of Mother Earth's resources and to produce as l ittle waste as possible; and make the conscious decision to challenge and reprioritize our lifestyles to ensure the health of the natural world for present and future generations. 149

PAGE 150

APPENDIX B EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 Federal Actions t o Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations: Executive Order 12898 February 11, 1994 EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1 1. IMPLEMENTATION. 1 101. Agency Responsibilities. To the greatest extent practicable and p ermitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth i n the report on the National Performance Re view, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populatio ns and low income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Ri co, and the Commonwealth of the Marian islands. 1 102. Creation of an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (a) Within 3 months of the date of this order, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ("Administrator") or the Administrator's designee shall convene an Interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice ("Working Grou p"). The Working Group shall comprise the heads of the following executive agencies and offices, or their designees: (a)Department of Defense; (b) Department of Health and Human Services; (c)Department of Housing and Urban Development; (d) Departm ent of Labor; (e) Department of Agriculture; (f) Department of Transportation; (g) Department of Justice; (h) Department of the Interior; (i) Department of Commerce; (j) Department of Energy; (k) Environmental Protection Agency; (1) Office of Management and Budget; (m) Office of Science and Technology Policy; (n) Office of the Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy; (o) Office of the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; (p) National Economic Council; (q) Council of Economic Advisers; and (r) such other Government officials as the President may designate. The Working Group shall report to the President through the Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. 150

PAGE 151

(b)The Wor king Group shall: (1) provide guidance to Federal agencies on criteria for identifying disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and l ow income populations; (2) coordinate with, provide guidance to, and serve as a clearinghouse for, each Federal agency as it develops an environmental justice strategy as required by section 1103 of this order, in order to ensure that the administration, interpretation and enforcement of programs, activities and poli cies are undertaken in a consistent manner; (3) assist in coordinating research by, and stimulating cooperation among, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other agencies conducting research or other activities in accordance with section 33 of this order; (4) assist in coordinating data collection, required by this order; (5) examine existing data and studies on environmental justice; (6) hold public meetings at required in section 5502(d) of this order; and (7) develop interagency model projects on environmental justice that evidence cooperation among Federal agencies. 1 103. Development of Agency Strategies. (a) Except as provided in sec tion 6 605 of this order, each Federal agency shall develop an agency wide environmental justice strategy, as set forth in subsections (b) (e) of this section that identifies and addresses disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations. The environmental justice strategy shall list programs, policies, planning and public participation processes, enforcement, and/or rulemakings related to human health or the environment that should be revised to, at a minimum: (1) promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority populations and low income populat ions: (2) ensure greater public participation; (3) improve r esearch and data collection relating to the health of and environment of minority populations and low income populations; and (4) identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority populations and low income populations. In addition, the environmental justice strategy shall 151

PAGE 152

include, where appropriate, a timetable for undertaking identified revisions and consideration of economic and social implications of the revisions. (b) Within 4 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall identify an internal administrative process for developing its environmental justice strategy, and shall inform the Working Group of the process. (c) Within 6 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall provide the Working Group with an outline of its proposed environmental justice strategy. (d) Within 10 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall provide the Working Group with its proposed environmental justice strategy. (e) Within 12 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall finalize its environmental justice strategy and provide a copy and written description of its strategy to the Working Group. During the 12 month period from the date of this order, each Federal agency, as part of it s environmental justice strategy, shell identify several specific projects that can be promptly undertaken to address particular concerns identified during the development of the proposed environmental justice strategy, and a schedule for implementing thos e projects. (f) Within 24 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall report to the Working Group on its progress in implementing its agency wide environmental justice strategy. (g) Federal agencies shall provide additional periodic repor ts to the Working Group as requested by the Working Group. 1 104. Reports to The President. Within 14 months of the date of this order, the Working Group shall submit to the President, through the Office of the Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy and the Office of the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, a report that describes the implementation of this order, and includes the final environmental justice strategies described in section 1 103(e) of this order. Sec. 22. F ederal Agency Responsibilities For Federal Programs. Each Federal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including populations) from participation in, denying persons (including populations) the 152

PAGE 153

benefits of, or subjecting persons (including populations) to discrimination under, such, programs, policies, and activit ies, because of their race, Color, or national origin. Sec. 3 3. Research, Data Collection, and Analysis 3 301. Human Health and Environmental Research and Analysis. (a) Environmental human health research, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall include diverse segments of the population in epidemiological and clinical studies, including segments at high risk from environmental hazards, such as minority populations, low income populations and workers who may be exposed to, substantial environmental hazards. (b) Environmental human health analyses, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall identify multiple and cumulative exposures. (c) Federal agencies shall provide minority populations and low income populations the opportunity to comment on t he development and design of research strategies undertaken pursuant to this order. 3 302. Human Health and Environmental Data Collection and Analysis To the extent permitted by existing law, including the Privacy Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. section 552a): (a) each federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and analyze information assessing and comparing environmental and human health risks borne by populations identified by race, national origin, or income. To the extent practical and appropriate, Federal agencies shall use this information to determine whether their programs, policies, and activities have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low income populations; (b) In connection with the development and implementation of agency strategies in section 1103 of this order, each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain and analyze information on the race, national origi n, income level, and other readily accessible and appropriate information for areas surrounding facilities or sites expected to have substantial environmental, human health, or economic effect on the surrounding populations, when such facilities or sites b ecome the subject of a substantial Federal environmental administrative or judicial 153

PAGE 154

action. Such information shall be made available to the public unless prohibited by law; and (c) Each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and analyze information on the race, national origin, income level, and other readily accessible and appropriate information for areas surrounding Federal facilities that are: (1) subject to the reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1100111050 as mandated in Executive Order No. 12856; and (2) expected to have a substantial environmental, human health, or economic effect on surrounding populations. Such information shall be made avai lable to the public unless prohibited by law. ( d) In carrying out the responsibilities in this section, each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall share information and eliminate unnecessary duplication of efforts through the use of existing data systems and cooperative agreements among Federal agencies and with State, local, and tribal governments. Sec. 44. Subsistence Consumption Of Fish And Wildlife. 4 401. Consumption Patterns. Inorder to assist in identifying the need for ensuring protection of populations with differential patterns of subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife, Federal agencies, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations w ho principally rely on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence. Federal agencies shall communicate to the public the risks of those consumption patterns. 4 402. Guidance. Federal agencies, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall work in a coordinated man ner to publish guidance reflecting the latest scientific information available concerning methods for evaluating the human health risks associated with the consumption of pollutant bearing fish or wildlife. Agencies shall consider such guidance in developi ng their policies and rules. Sec. 55. Public Participation and Access to Information (a) The public may submit recommendations to Federal agencies relating to the incorporation of environmental justice principles into Federal agency programs or policies. Each Federal agency shall convey such recommendations to the Working Group. 154

PAGE 155

(b) Each Federal agency may, whenever practicable and appropriate, translate crucial public documents, notices, and hearings relating to human health or the environment for limited English speaking populations. (c) Each Federal agency shall work to ensure that public documents, notices, and hearings relating to human health or the environment are concise, understandable, and readily accessible to the public. (d) The Wor king Group shall hold public meetings, as appropriate, for the purpose of fact finding, receiving public comments, and conducting inquiries concerning environmental justice. The Working Group shall prepare for public review a summary of the comments and recommendations discussed at the public meetings. Sec. 66. General Provisions. 6 601. Responsibility for Agency Implementation. The head of each Federal agency shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this order. Each Federal agency shall conduct internal reviews and take such other steps as may be necessary to monitor compliance with this order. 6 602. Executive Order No. 12250. This Executive order is intended to supplement but not supersede Executive Order No. 12250, which requires consistent and effective implementation of various laws prohibiting discriminatory practices in programs receiving Federal financial assistance. Nothing herein shall limit the effect or mandate of Executive Order No. 12250. 6 6O3. Executive Order No. 12875. This Executive order is not intended to limit the effect or mandate of Executive Order No. 12875. 6 604. Scope. For purposes of this order, Federal agency means any agency on the Working Group, and such other agencies as may be designated by the Presiden t, that conducts any Federal program or activity that substantially affects human health or the environment. Independent agencies are requested to comply with the provisions of this order. 6 605. Petitions far Exemptions. The head of a Federal agency may petition the President for an exemption from the requirements of this order on the grounds that all or some of the petitioning agency's programs or activities should not be subject to the requirements of this order. 155

PAGE 156

6 606. Native American Programs. Each F ederal agency responsibility set forth under this order shall apply equally to Native American programs. In addition the Department of the Interior, in coordination with the Working Group, and, after consultation with tribal leaders, shall coordinate steps to be taken pursuant to this order that address Federally recognized Indian Tribes. 6 607. Costs. Unless otherwise provided by law, Federal agencies shall assume the financial costs of complying with this order. 6 608. General. Federal agencies shall implement this order consistent with, and to the extent permitted by, existing law. 6 609. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, nor does i t create any right, benefi t, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person. This order shall not be construed to create any right to judicial review involving the comp liance or noncompliance of the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person with this order. William J. Clinton The White House February 11, 1994 156

PAGE 157

APPENDIX C MODEL FOOD ACCESS SU RVEY Model Food Access Survey This survey is part of a collaborative study on food and health in Tampa Bay, Florida. Your participation is entirely voluntary and greatly appreciated. All data will remain a nonymous Demographic Information Physical Address: ___________________________________________ ______________ Street City State ZIP code How old are you? __________ What is your gender? Male Female What is your r elationship status? (e.g. married, single, living with a partner, etc) __________ ________ How many dependent children under 18 years old are living with you? _____________ What is your race? (a) Asian (b) Black (c) Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (d) Native American (e) White Are you Hispanic or Latino? (a) Yes (b) No What was your household income last year? (a) Less than $15,000 (b) $15,00 1 to $30,000 (c) $30,001 to $45,000 (d) $45,001 to $60,000 (e) Above $60,000 Are you a SNAP (food stamp) or WIC participant? (a) Yes (b) No Questions 1. Are you the primary grocery shopper in your household? (a) Yes (b) No 2. How many people do you shop for? _______________ How many are children? _________________ 3. How often do you shop for food? (a) Less than once a week (b) Once a week (c) 24 times a week (d) More than 4 times a week 4. How often do you actually shop for groceries at the following types of stores? Please rank from 1 (most often) to 5 (least often) _______ Supermarket What is your level of education? (a) No Degree (b) High School Diploma (c) Some College or Technical School (d) College Degree (e) Graduate/Professional Degree 157

PAGE 158

_______ Neighborhood Market _______ Convenience Store _______ Farmers Market _______Other ( _______________) 5. How often wou ld you prefer to shop for groceries at the following types of stores? Please rank from 1 (most often) to 5 (least often) _______ Supermarket _______ Neighborhood Market _______ Convenience Store _______ Farmers Market _______Other ( _______________) 6. Ho w often do you use the following modes of transportation when shopping for food? Please rank from 1 (most often) to 5 (least often) _______ Personal Automobile _______ Bus or Public Transportation _______ Walking/Bicycling _______ Get a Ride from Someone _______ Other (______________) 7. How often do you shop in your own neighborhood? (a) All of the time (b) Most of the time (c) Some of the time (d) Occasionally (e) Never 8. How long is your round trip to and from your preferred shopping dest ination? (a) Under 5 minutes (b) 5 10 minutes (c) 1020 minutes (d) 20 30 minutes (e) Over 30 minutes 9. How important are the following when you choose where to shop? Please rank from 1 ( most important ) to 5 (least important ) _______ Price/Value _______ Freshness/Taste _______ Healthy/Good for my Family _______ Organic/Locally Produced _______ Close/Convenience 10. How often do you purchase fresh fruits and vegetables? (a) All of the time (b) Most of the time (c) Some of the time (d) Rarely (e) Never 11. How important is eating healthy to you? (a) Very Important (b) Important (c) Neutral (d) Not Very Important (e) Important 12. Do you ever worry about not having enough to eat ? (a) All of the time (b) Most of the time (c) Some of the ti me (d) Rarely (e) Never 13. What is your average weekly food budget $____________ 158

PAGE 159

14. How often do you exercise ? (a) Daily (b) Several times a week (c) Once a week (d) Rarely (e) Never 15. How often do you eat the following types of food? Please rank from 1 ( most often ) to 5 (least often) _______ Homeprepared meals _______ Sit down restaurant _______ School/Work Cafeteria _______ Fast Food _______ Other 16. How would you rate your overall health? (a) Very good (b) Good (c) Average (d) Fair (e) Poor 17. Do you use tobacco products? (a) Yes (b) No 18. Do you have any of the following forms of health insurance? (a) Private (b) Work Sponsored (c) Medicare/Medicaid (d) County Health Program (e) None 19. Do you consider yourself? (a) Underweight (b) Normal Weight (c) Overweight (d) Obese 20. Do you consider the other members of your household? (a) Underweight (b) Normal Weight (c) Overweight ( d ) Obese 21. Do you have any of the following medical conditions? (a) High Blood Pressure (b) Heart Disease (c) Diabetes (d) Osteoporosis (e) Cancer 22. How much sleep do you get nightly? (a) Less than 5 hours (b) 5 to 7 hours (c) 7 to 9 hours (d) more than 9 hours 23. How much time do you spend on the computer or watching television in an average day? (a) Less than 1 hour (b) 1 to 2 hours (c) 2 to 3 hours (d) more than 3 hours 24. How many hours do you work in an average week? (a) 0 hours (b) 1 to 10 hours (c) 11 to 20 hours (d) 20 to 40 hours (e) over 40 hours 25. About how much do you weigh? ______pounds / About how tall are you? ______feet _____ inches 159

PAGE 160

LIST OF REFERENCES Acheson, D. (1998). Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health: Report. London, UK : Stationery Office. Adams D. C., & Adams, A. E. (2011). De placing local at the farmers market: Consumer conceptions of local foods. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 26 (2), 74 100. Adelman, R. M. (2004). Neighborhood opportunities, race, and class: The Black middle class and residential segregation. City & Community 3 (1), 43 63. Adger,W., & Kelly, M. (1999). Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4 (3 4), 453466. Adler, N.E., & Ostrove, J.M. (1999). Socioeconomic status: What we know and w hat we dont. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896 3 15. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2007).Toxicological Profile for Lead. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Agyeman, J., Bul lard, R.D., & Evans, B. (2003). Explo ring the nexus: Bringing together sustainability, env ironmental justice and equity. Space & Polity, 6(1), 77 90. Ahern, M. M., Hendryx M., Conley, J., Fedorko, E., Ducatman, A. & Zullig, K J. (2011). The a ssociation b etween m ountaintop m ining and b irth defects a mong l ive b irths in Central Appalachia,19962003. Environmental Research, 111 838 46. Alberti, M., Marzluff, J. M., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan C., & Zumbrunnen, C. (2003). Integrating humans into ecology: O pportunities and challeng es for studying urban ecosystems. BioScience, 53 11691179. Ali, S. H. (2003). Mining, the Environment, and Indigenous Development Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Alkon, A. (2008). Paradise or pavement: the social constructions of the environment in two urban farmers' markets and their implications for environmental justice and sustainability. Local Environment, 13(3), 271289. Alkon, A. H., & Mares, T. M. (2012). Food sovereignty in US food movements: radical visions and neoliberal constraints. Agriculture and Human Values 29 (3), 347 359. Allen, B. L. (2007).Environmental justice, local knowledge, and after dis aster planning in New Orleans. Technology in Science, 29, 153 159. 160

PAGE 161

Allen, D. (2001). Social Class, Race, and Toxic Releases in American C ounties, 1995. Social Science Journal 38(1), 1325. Allen, P. (2010). Realizing justice in local food sy stems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 295 308. Allen, P., FitzSimmons, M., Goodman, M., & Warner, K. (2003). Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: T he tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. Journal of Rural Studies 19(1), 61 75. Allen, P., & Guthman, J. (2006). From old school to farm to school: Neoliberalization from the ground up. Agriculture and Human V alues 23(4), 401415. Almanza, Susana, and Raul Alvarez. (1997). Empowering communities of color: Lessons from Austin. In R. Bullard & G. Johnson (Eds.) Just Transportation: Dismantling Race and Class Barriers to Mobility (pp. 110 120). Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society. Alston, D. (1991). We Speak for Ourselves: Social Justice, Race, and Environment Washington, DC: The Panos Institute. Alwitt, L.F., & Donley, T.D. (1997). Retail Stores in Poor Urban Neighborhoods. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(1), 139164. American Lung Association (ALA). (2001). Urban air pollution and health inequities: A workshop report. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(3), 357 374. Anderton, D. L., Anderson, A. B., Oak es, J. M., & Fraser M. R. (1994). Environmental e quity: The d emographics of d umping. Demography, 31 229 248. Anderton, D. L., Oakes, J. M., & Egan, K. L. (1997). Environmental e quity in S uperfund: Demographics of the d iscovery and p rioritization of a bandoned t oxic s ites Evaluation Review, 21 (1), 326. Anderson, M. D. (2008). Rights based food systems and the goals of food systems reform. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(4), 593608. Anderson, M. D., & Cook, J. T. (1999). Community food security: Practice in need of theory? Agriculture and Human Values 16 (2), 141 150. Andrews, M., Kantor, L. S., Lino, M., & Ripp linger, D. (2001). Using USDAs Thrifty Food Plan to assess food availabil ity and affordability. Food Review, 24(2), 45 53. Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association LISA Geographical Analysis 27 (2), 93 115. 161

PAGE 162

Apelberg, B. J., Buckley T.J., White, R.H. (2005). Socioeconomic and racial disparities in cancer risk from air toxics in Maryland. Env ironmental Health Perspect i ves, 113 693699. Apparicio, P., Abdelmajid, M., Riva, M., & Shearmur, R. (2008). Comparing alternative approaches to measuring the geographical accessibility of urban health services: Distance types and aggregationerror issues. International Journal of Health Geographics 7 (1), 7 21. Apparicio, P., Cloutier, M. S., & Shearmur, R. (2007). The case of Montreal's missing food deserts: Evaluation of accessibility to food supermarkets. International Journal of Health Geographics 6 (1), 4 17. Arcury, T. A., Quandt, S. A., & Russell, G.B. (2002). Pesticide safety among farmworkers: Perceived risk and perceived control as factors reflecting environmental justice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(2), 223240. Arnell, N. (1999). Climate change and global water resources. Global Environmental Change, 9 531 549. Arquette, M., Cole, M., Cook K., LaFrance, B., Peters, M., Ransom, J., Stairs, A. (2002). Holistic risk based environmental decision making: A Native perspective. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (Supplement 2), 259264. Asch, P. & Seneca, J. J. (1978). Some e vidence on the d istribution of a ir q uality. Land Economics, 54(3), 28 297. Ash, M, & Fetter, T. R. (2004). Who lives on the wrong side of the environmental tracks? Evidence from the EPAs Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model. Social Science Quart erly, 85 44162. Ashe, M., Feldstein, L. M., Lee, M. M., & Ransom, M. M. (2007). Land use laws and access to tobacco, alcohol, and fast food. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35 6062. Atlas, M. (2001). Rush to judgment: An empirical analysis of envi ronmental equity in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcement actions. Law & Society Review, 35, 633 682. Atlas, M. (2002). Few and far between? An environmental equity analysis of the geographic distribution of hazardous waste generation. Social Science Quarterly 83, 365378. Auchincloss, A. H., Riolo, R. L., Brown, D. G., Cook, J., & Diez Roux, A. V. (2011). An agent based model of income inequalities in diet in the context of residential segregation. American Journal of Preventive M edicine, 40(3), 303 311. 162

PAGE 163

Austin, S. B., Melly, S. J., Sanchez, B. N., Patel, A., Buka, S., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2005). Clustering of fast food restaurants around schools: A novel application of spatial statistics to the study of food environments. Journal of Information, 95(9), 15751581. Bachman, R. (1992). Death and Violence on the Reservation: Homicide, Family Violence, and Suicide in American Indian Populations Westport, CT: Auburn House. Baer, P. (2002). Equity, greenhouse gas emissions, and global common resources. In: S.H. Schneider (Ed.) Climate Change Policy: A Survey (pp. 393 408). Washington, DC: Island Press Baer, P. (2006). Adaptation: who pays whom? In W. N. Adger, S. Huq, M. J. Mace, & J. Paavola (Eds.) Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change (pp. 131 153). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baker, E. A., Schootman, M., Barnidge, E., & Kelly, C. (2006). Peer r eviewed: The r ole of r ace and p overty in a ccess to f oods t hat e nable i ndividuals to a dhere to d ietary g uidelines. Preventing Chronic Disease 3 (3), 1 11. Barnett, J. (2001). Adapting to climate change in Pacific Island countries: The problem of uncertainty. World Development, 29(6), 977 993. Bashir, S.A. (2002). Home is where the harm is: Inadequate housing as a public health crisis. American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 733738. Baum, C. (2007). The Effects of Food Stamps on Obesity Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service. Bazzano, L. A., Serdula, M. K., &Liu, S. (2003). Dietary intake of fruits and vegetables and risk of cardiovascular disease. Current Atherosclerosis Reports, 5, 492 499. Beaulac, J., Kristjansson, E., & Cummins, S. (2009). Peer reviewed: A systematic review of food deserts, 19662007. Preventing Chronic Disease, 6(3), 1 10. Bedore, M. (2010). Just urb an food systems: A new direction for food ac cess and urban social justice. Geography Compass, 4(9), 14181432. Been, V. (1993). Whats f airness g ot t o d o w ith i t: Environmental j ustice and the siting of l ocally u nwanted l and u ses. Cornell Law Review, 79 10011085. Been, V. (1994). Locally u nwanted l and u ses in m inority n eighborhoods: Disproportionate siting or market dynamics. Yale Law Journal, 103, 13831422. Been V. (1995). Analyzing evidence of environmental justice. Journal of Land Use Law, 11, 1 36. 163

PAGE 164

Been, V., & Gupta, F. (1997). Coming to the nuisance or going to the barrios? A l ongitudinal a nalysis of e nvironmental justice claims. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24 1 56. Berry, B. J. L. (1977). The Social Burdens of Environmental Pollution: A Comparative Metropolitan Data Source. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Berton, J. (2012, 3/22). Methyl iodide pulled from market. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from iodidepulled from market 3425810.php Bitler, M., & Haider, S. J. (2011). An economic view of food deserts in the United States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30(1), 153 176. Bjork, J. Albin, M., Grahn, P., Jacobsson, H., Ardo, J., Wadbro, J., Skarback, E. (2008). Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. Jou rnal of Epidemiological Community Health, 62(e2), 1 7. Blais, L. E. (1996). Environmental racism reconsidered. North Carolina Law Review, 75, 75151. Block, D., & Kouba, J. (2006). A comparison of the availability and affordability of a market basket in two communities in the Chicago area. Public Health Nutrition 9 (7), 837 845. Block, J. P., Scribner, R. A., & DeSalvo, K. B. (2004). Fast food, race/ethnicity, and income: A geographic analysis American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 27(3), 211217. Bo daken, M. (2002). The increasing shortage of affordable rental housing in America: Action items for preservation. Housing Facts and Findings, 4(4), 4 8. Bodor, J. N., Rice, J. C., Farley, T. A., Swalm, C. M., & Rose, D. (2010a). Disparities in food access: Does aggregate availability of key foods from other stores offset the relative lack of supermarkets in AfricanAmerican neighborhoods? Preventive medicine, 51(1), 63 67. Bodor, J. N., Rice, J. C., Farley, T. A., Swalm, C. M., & Rose, D. (2010b). The association between obesity and urban food environments. Journal of Urban Health 87(5), 771781. Bodor, J. N., Rose, D., Farley, T. A., Swalm, C., & Scott, S. K. (2008). Neighbourhood fruit and vegetable availability and consumption: The role of small food stores in an urban environment. Public Health Nutrition 11(4), 413 420. 164

PAGE 165

Boer, J. T., Pastor, M., Jr., Sadd, J. L., & Snyder, L. D. (1997). Is there environmental r acism? The demographics of h azardous waste in Los Angeles County. Social Science Quarterly, 78(4), 793810. Bohle, H. G., Downing, T. E., & Watts, M. J. (1994). Climate change and social vulnerability: Towards a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change, 4 (1), 37 48. Bonnefoy, X. (2007). Inadequate housing and health: An overview. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 30(3/4), 411429. Boone, C. G., Buckley, G. L., Grove, J. M. & Sister, C. (2009). Parks and people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Annals of the Association of Ameri can Geographers 99(4), 767 787. Booth, K. M., Pinkston, M. M., & Poston, W. S. C. (2005). Obesity and the built environment. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(5), 110 117. Bowen, W. (2002). An Analytical Review of Environmental Justice Research: What Do We Really Know? Environmental Management 29 (1), 3 15. Bowen, W. M., Salling, M. J., Haynes, K. E., & Cyran, E. J. (1995). Toward e nvironmental j ustice: Spatial e quity in Ohio and Cleveland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(4), 641-663. Bowman, S. A., & Vinyard, B. T. (2004). Fast food consumption of US adults: impact on energy and nutrient intakes and overweight status. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 23(2), 163168. Brainard, J. S., Fallon, P. J., Jones, A. B., Bateman, I. J. & Lovett, A. A. (2002). Modeling environmental equity: Access to air quality in Birmingham, England. Environment and Planning A 34 (4), 695 716 Brajer, V., & Hall, J. V. ( 1992). R ecent e vidence on the d istribution of a ir p ollution e ffects. Contemporary Policy Issues, 10 (2), 63-71. Brankroft, K. H. (2012). Zones of e xclusion: Urban spatial p olicies, s ocial j ustice, and social services. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 39(3), 6384. Britten, P., Lyon, J., Weaver, C. M., Kris Etherton, P. M., Nicklas, T. A., Weber, J. A., & Davis, C. A. (2006). MyPyramid food intake pattern modeling for the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 38(6) S143 S152. Brooks, R. O. (1991). A new agenda for modern environmental law. Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation, 6 1 38 165

PAGE 166

Brown, P. (1995). Race, class, and e nvironmental h ealth: A r eview and systemization of the l iterature. Environmental Research, 65, 15 30. Brownell, K. D., & Horgen, K. B. (2004). Food Fight: The Inside Story of the Food Industry, America's Obesity Crisis, and What We Can Do About It Chicago, IL: Contemporary books. Brulle, R. J. (2000). Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. E nvironmental Movement for a Critical Theory Perspective Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Brulle, R. J., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). Environmental justice: Human health and environmental inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health 27(3): 1 22. Brunekreef, B. & Holgate, S. T. (2002). Air p ollution and h ealth. The Lancet 360 233 1242. Bryant, B. (1995). Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions Covelo, CA: Island Press. Buckingham, S. & Kulcur, R. (2009). Gendered geographies of environmental justi ce. Antipode, 41(4), 659 683. Bullard, R. D. (1983). Solid w aste sites and the H ouston Black c ommunity Sociological Inquiry 53, 273 288. Bullard, R. D. (1987). Invisible Houston: The Black Experience in Boom and Bust. College Station, TX: Texas A& M University Press. Bullard, R. D. (1990). Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bullard, R. D. (1993). Race and environmental justice in the United States. Yale Journal of International Law 18 319 335. Bullard, R. D. (1994). Environmental justice for all: Its the right thing to do. Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation, 9 281 308. Bullard, R. D. (1996). Environmental justice : Its more than just waste facility siting. Social Science Quarterly 77(3 ), 493499. Bullard, R. D. (2004). Addressing Urban Transportation Equity in the United States. Fordham Law Review, 31, 11831210. Bullard, R. D. (2005). The Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights and the Politics of Pollution. San Francisco: Sierr a Club Books. 166

PAGE 167

Bullard, R. D., & Johnson. G.S. (1997). Introduction. In R. D Bullard & G. S. Johnson (Eds.), Just Transportation: Dismantling Race and Class Barriers to Mobility (pp. 1 6). Gabriola Island, British Columbia: Island Press. Bullard, R. D., & W right, B. H. (1992). The quest for environmental equity: Mobilizing the African American community for social change. In R. Dunlap & A. Mertig (Eds.), American E nvironmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement 1970 1990 (pp. 39 49). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Burke, L. (1994). Race & e nvironmental e quity: A g eographic a nalysis in Los Angeles. Geographic Information Systems 3 (9), 44 50. Burns, C. M., & Inglis, A. D. (2007). Measuring food access in Melbourne: access to healthy and fast foods by car, bus and foot in an urban municipality in Melbourne. Health & place, 13(4), 877885. Bustillos, B., Sharkey, J. R., Anding, J., & McIntosh, A. (2009). Availability of more healthful food alternatives in traditional, convenience, and nontraditional types of food stores in two rural Texas counties. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 109 (5), 883 889. Buttenheim, A. M., Havassy, J., Fang, M., Glyn, J., & Karpyn, A. E. (2012). Increasing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program/Electronic Benefits Transfer sales at f armers' m arkets with v endor o perated w ireless p oint of s ale t erminals. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(5), 636641. Caldeira, T. P. (1996). Fortified e nclaves: The n ew u rban s egregation. Public Culture 8 (2), 303 328. Campbell, M. C. (2004). Building a common table the role for planning in community food systems. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23 (4), 341 355. Capek, S. (1993). The environmental justice frame: A conceptual discussion and an application. So cial Problems 40(1), 5 24. Carre, N. C. (2012). Environmental justice and hydraulic fracturing: The ascendancy of grassroots populism in policy determination. Journal of Social Change, 4 (1), 1 13. Cassady, D., Jetter, K. M., & Culp, J. (2007). Is price a barrier to eating more fruits and vegetables for low income families? Journal of the American Dietetic Association 107 (11), 19091915. Chakraborty, J. & Maanay, J. A. (201 1). Proximity analysis for exposure assessment in environmental health justice research. In J.A. Maantay, S. McLafferty (Eds.), Geospatial Analysis of Environmental Health. (pp. 111 138). New York, NY: Springer. 167

PAGE 168

Chakraborty, J. Schweitzer, L., & Forkenbrock, D. (1999). Using GIS to assess the environmental justice impacts of trans portation system changes. Transactions in GIS 3 (3), 239 258. Charles, C. Z. (2003). The dynamics of racial residential segregation. American Review of Sociology 29 167 207. Charreire, H., Casey, R., Salze, P., Simon, C., Chaix, B., Banos, A., Oppert, J. M. (2010). Measuring the food environment using geographical information systems: A methodological review. Public Health Nutrition 13(11), 17731785 Chen, Z., Yen, S. T., Eastwood, D. B. (2005). Effects of food stamp participation on body weight and obesity. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87, 11671173. Chess, C. & Purcell, K. (1999). Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Environmental Science and Technology 33 (16), 26852692. Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68 129 38. Chung, C., & Myers, S. L. (1999). Do the poor pay more for food? An analysis of grocery store availability and food price disparities. Journal of Consumer Affairs 33 (2), 276 296. Clapp, J. (2001). Toxic Exports: The Transfer of Hazardous Wastes from Rich to Poor Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Clark, R. D., Lab, S. P., & Stoddard, L. (1995). Environmental equity: A critique of the literature. Social Pathology, 1 253 269. Clarke, I., Hallsworth, A., Jackson, P., de Kervenoael, R., Perez del Aguila, R., & Kirkup, M. (2004). Retail competition and consumer choice: Contextualising the food deserts debate. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 32(2) 89 99. Cole, L., & Foster, S. (2001). From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement New York: New York University Press. Commission for Racial Justice, United Church of Christ (UCC). (1987). Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and SocioEconomic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. New York NY : United Church of Christ. Connelly, N. A., Knuth, B. A., & Brown, T. L. (1996). Sportfis h consumption patterns of Lake Ontario anglers and the relationship to health advisories. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16 90 101. 168

PAGE 169

Cook, J. T., Frank, D. A., Berkowitz, C., Black, M. M., Casey, P. H., Cutts, D. B., Nord, M. (2004). Foo d insecurity is associated with adverse health outcomes among human infants and toddlers. Journal of Nutrition, 134 (6), 1432 1438. Corburn, J. (2002). Environmental justice, local knowledge, and risk: The discourse of a community based cumulative exposure assessment. Environmental Management 29(4), 451 466. Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J., Chan, T., & Su, M. (2001). Mapping residents' perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: a methodological note. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 371 383. Crane, P., & Kinzig, A. (2005). Nature in the metropolis. Science, 308 (5726), 12251225. Crompton, J. L. (2001). The impact of parks on property values: A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 33, 1 31. Cummins, S. C., McKay, L., & MacIn tyre, S. (2005). McDonald's restaurants and neighborhood deprivation in Scotland and England. American journal of preventive medicine, 29(4), 308310. Cutter, S. L., & Solecki, W. D. (1996). Setting environmental j ustice in space and p lace: Acute and chronic airborne t oxic r eleases in the Southeastern United States. Urban Geography, 17(5), 380399. Cutts, B. C., Darby, K. J., Boone, C. G., Brewis, A. (2009). City structure, obesity, and environmental justice: An integrated analysis of physical and soci al barriers to walkable streets and park access. Social Science & Medicine, 69 13141322. Davidson, P., & Anderton, D. (2000). Demographics of Dumping II: A National Environmental Equity Survey and the Distribution of Hazardous Materials Handlers. Demography 37(4), 461 466. Dawson, S. E. (1992). Navajo uranium workers and the effects of occupational illnesses: A case study. Human Organization, 51, 389 397. Dean, W. R., & Sharkey, J. R. (2011). Rural and urban differences in the associations between charac teristics of the community food environment and fruit and vegetable intake. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 43 (6), 426433. Delgado, R. (2000). Two ways to think about race: Reflections on the id, the ego, and other reformist theories of equal protection. Georgetown Law Journal 89 22792296. Denmark, D. (1998). The outsiders: Planning and transport disadvantage. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17 (3), 231 245. 169

PAGE 170

Devall, B. & Sessions, G. (2007). Deep Ecology: Living as i f Nature Mattered Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith. Dietz, W. H. (1995). Does hunger cause obesity? Pediatrics 95 766 767. Donatuto, J., & Harper, B. L. (2008). Issues in evaluation fish consumption for Native American Tribes. Risk Analysis 28 ( 6), 1497 1506. Don kin, A. J., Dowler, E. A., Stevenson, S. J., & Turner, S. A. (1999). Mapping access to food at a local level. British Food Journal 101 (7), 554 564. Dorsey, M. (2007). Climate knowledge and power: Tales of skeptic tanks, weather gods, and sagas for climate (in)justice. Capitalism Nature Socialism 18(2), 7 21. Dowler, E., & Caraher, M. (2003). Local food projects: The new philanthropy? The Political Quarterly 74 (1), 57 65. Downey, L. (1998). Environmental injustice: Is race or income a better predictor? Social Science Quarterly, 79(4), 766778. Downey, L. (2007). Assessing environmental inequality: How the conclusions we draw vary according to the definitions we employ. Sociological Spectrum: MidSouth Sociological Association, 25(3), 349 369. Downey, L. & Hawkins, B. (2008). Race, income, and environmental quality in the United States. Sociological Perspectives, 51(4), 759781. Drewnowski, A. & Darmon, N. (2005). Fast food choices and diet costs: An economic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Nutritional Sciences 135 900904. Drewnowski, A., & Specter, S. E. (2004). Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 79 6 16. Duhme, H., Weiland, S. K., & Keil, U. (1998). Epidemiological analyses of the relationship between environmental pollution and asthma. Toxicology Letters 103 307316. Dunn, J.R., Hayes, M.V. (1999). Identifying social pathways for health inequities. The role of housing. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 896 399 402. Duthie, J., Cervenka, K., & Waller, S. T. (2007). Environmental justice analysis: Challenges for metropolitan transportation planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2013(1), 8 12. Egger, G., & Swinburn, B. (1997). An" ecological" approach to the obesity pandemic. British Medical Journal 315 (7106), 477483. 170

PAGE 171

Eliot, J. R., & Pais, J. (2006). Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina: Social differences in human responses to disaster. Socia l Science Research, 35, 295 321. Executive Order No. 12,898 (EO 12,898), 59 C.F.R. 7629 (1994). Evans, G. W., & Kantrowitz, E. (2002). Socioeconomic status and health: The potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 3 03 331. Farquhar, S., Samples, J., Ventura, S., Davis, S., Abernathy, M. McCauley, L. Shadbe, N. (2008). Promoting the occupational health of indigenous farmworkers. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 10, 269 280. Feenstra, G. W. (1997). Local food systems and sustainable communities. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 12(1), 28 36. Feenstra, G. W. (2002). Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values, 19 99 106. Feitelson, E. (2002). Int roducing e nvironmental e quity d imensions into the sustainable t ransport d iscourse: Issues and p itfalls. Transportation Research Part D, 7, 99 118. Felton, J. (2005). Brownfield redevelopment 19952005: An environmental justice success story? R eal Property, Probate, & Trust Law Journal 40 679 704. Ferris, J., Norman, C., & Sempik, J. (2001). People, land and sustainability: Community gardens and the social dimension of sustainable development. Social Policy & Administration, 35 (5), 559568. Fisher, B. D., & Strogatz, D. S. (1999). Community measures of low fat milk consumption: comparing store shelves with households. American Journal of Public Health 89(2), 235 237. Fixico, D. (1998). The Invasion of Indian Country in the Twentieth Century: American Capit alism and Tribal Natural Resources. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. Flegal, K. M., Carroll, M. D., Odgen, C. L., & Curtin, L. R. (2010). Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 19992008. Journal of the American Medical Association 303 (3), 235 241. Flegal, K. M., Carroll, M. D., Ogden, C. L., & Johnson, C. L. (2002). Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults 19992000. Journal of the American Medical Association 2 88, 1723 1727. Fleischhacker, S. E., Evenson, K. R., Rodriguez, D. A., & Ammerman, A. S. (2010). A systematic review of fast food access studies. Obesity Reviews 12(5), e460 e471. 171

PAGE 172

Flocks, J. (2012). Environmental and social injustice of farmworker pesticide exposure. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy 19, 255 282. Flocks, J., Clarke, L., Albrecht, S., Bryant, C., Monaghan, P., & Baker, H. (2001). Implementing a community based social marketing project to improve agricultural worker health. Environmental Health Perspectives 109 (S3), 461 468. Flocks, J., & Mona ghan, P. (2003). Collaborative research with farmworkers in environmental justice. Practicing Anthropology 25(1), 6 9. Flocks, J., Monaghan, P., Albrecht, S., & Bahena, A. (2007). Florida farmworkers perceptions and lay knowledge of occupational pesticid es. Journal of Community Health 32(3), 181194. Florida Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research (2011). Redistricting Data (Public Law 94171) Summary File. Retrieved from demographics/2010census/data/2010Census_RedistrictingFile_Table1.pdf Floyd, M. F., & John son, C. Y. (2002). Coming to terms with environmental justice in outdoor recreation: A conceptual discussion with research implications. Leisure Sciences, 24 59 77. Foreman, C. (1998). The P romise and Peril of Environmental Justice. Washington, DC: Brooki ngs Institute. Fox, J. (1999). Mountaintop r emoval in West Virginia: An e nvironmental sacrifice z one. Organization & Environment 12(2), 163 183. Fraser, N. (1997). Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the Postsocialist Condition. New York, NY: Routledge. Freeman, A. M., III. (1972). Distribution of environmental quality. In A. V. Kneese & B. T. Bower (Eds.) Environmental Quality Analysis: Theory and Method in the Social Sciences (pp. 243 278). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. Frey, W. H. (1979). Central city white flight: Racial and nonracial causes. American Sociological Review, 44 425 448. Friedmann, H. (2007). Scaling up: Bringing public institutions and food service corporations into the project for a local, sustainable food system in Ontario. Agriculture and Human Values 24 (3), 389 398. Frongillo, E. A. (1999). Validation of measures of food insecurity and hunger. Journal of Nutrition 129 (2), 506S 509S. Frumpkin, H. (2005). Health, equity, and the built environment. Environmental Health Perspectives 113 (5), A290A291. 172

PAGE 173

Frumkin, H., Hess, J., Luber, J., Malilay, J., McGeehin, M. (2008). Climate change: The public health response. American Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 435 445. Furey, S., Strugnell, C., & McIlveen, M. H. (2001). An investigation of the potential existence of food deserts in rural and urban areas of Northern Ireland. Agriculture and Human Values, 18(4), 447457. Galster, G., & Godfrey, E. (2005). Raci al steering by real estate agents in t he U.S. in 2000. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71, 251 268. Galvez, M. P., Morland, K., Raines, C., Kobil, J., Siskind, J., Godbold, J., & Brenner, B. (2008). Race and food store availability in an inner city neighbourhood. Public Health Nutrition, 11(6) 624631 Gardiner, S. M. (2004). Ethics and global climate change. Ethics, 114 (3), 555 600. Garret, M., & Taylor. B. (1999). Reconsidering Social Equity in Public Transit. Berkeley Planning Journal, 13, 6 27. Gauna, E. (1995). Federal environmental citizens provisions: Obstacles and incentives on the road to environmental justice. Ecology Law Quarterly, 22, 1 87. Gedicks, A. (1993). The New Resource Wars: Native and Environmental Struggles against Multinational Corporations Boston: South End. Gianessi, L. P., Peskin, H. M., Wolff, E. (1979). The d istributional e ffects of u niform a ir p ollution p olicy in the US. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94(2) 281 301. Giang, T., Karpyn, A., Laurison, H. B., Hillier, A., & Perry, R. D. (2008). Closing the grocery gap in underserved communities: T he creation of the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 14(3), 272279. Gibson, D. (2003). Food stamp program participation is positively related to obesity in low income women. Journal of nutrition, 133(7), 22252231. Gibson, D. (2004). Long term food stamp program participation is differentially related to overweight in young girls and boys. Journal of Nutrition, 134 372 379. Gibson, D. (2006). Longterm food stamp program participation is positively related to simultaneous overweight in young daughters and obesity in mothers. Journal of Nutrition 136 10811085. Gilbert, A. & Chakraborty, J. (2011). Using geographically weighted regression for environmental justice analysis: Cumulative cancer risks from air toxics in Florida. Social Science Research, 20 273 286. 173

PAGE 174

Giles Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., Lange, A., & Donovan, R. (2005). Increasing walkingh ow important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 169176. Glanz, K. (2009). Measuring food environments: A historical perspective. Ame rican Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4), S93 S98. Glanz, K., Resnicow, K., Seymour, J., Hoy, K., Stewart, H., Lyons, M., & Goldberg, J. (2007). How major restaurant chains plan their menus: the role of profit, demand, and health. American Journal of Pr eventive Medicine, 32(5), 383 388. Glanz, K., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., & Frank, L. D. (2007). Nutrition environment measures survey in stores (NEMS S). American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(4), 282289. Godschalk, D.R., Brody, S.D., & Burby, R .J. (2003). Public participation in natural hazard mitigation: Challenges for comprehensive planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46 (5), 733 754. Goldberg, D. W. (2012). Texas A&M University Geoservices. Retrieved from Goldman, B. A. (1994). Not Just Prosperity: Achieving Sustainability with Environmental Justice Washington, D.C: National Wildlife Federation. Goldman, B. A., & Fitton L. (1994). Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited: An Update of the 1987 Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites Washington, DC: Center for Policy Alternatives. Goldsmith, C.A., & Kobzik, L. (1999). Particulate air pollut ion and asthma: A review of epidemiological and biological studies. Reviews on Environmental Health, 14, 121 134. Gonzales, C. G. (2007). Genetically modified organisms and justice: The international environmental justice implications of biotechnology. Georgetown International Law Review 19, 583 642. Gordon, C., Purciel Hill, M., Ghai, N. R., Kaufman, L., Graham, R., & Van Wye, G. (2011). Measuring food deserts in New York City's low income neighborhoods. Health & Place 17 (2), 696 700. GordonLarsen, P. Nelson, M.C. Page, P. & Popkin, B.M. (2006). Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity Pediatrics 117 417 424 174

PAGE 175

Gottlieb, D. J., Beiser, A. S. & OConner, G.T. (1995). Poverty, race, and medication use are correlates of asthma hospitalizations rates A small area analysis in Boston. Chest 108(1), 28 35. Gottlieb, R. (2009). Where we live, work, playand Eat: Expanding the environmental justice agenda. Environmental Justice, 2 (1), 7 8. Gottlieb, R. & Fisher, A. (1996). Community food security and environmental justice: Searching for a common discourse. Agriculture and Human Values 3 (3), 23 31. Gottlieb, R. & Joshi, A. (2010). Food Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Gowda, M. V., & Easterling, D. (1998). Nuclear waste and Native America: The MRS siting experience. Risk: Health, Safety, and Environment 9 229 258. Grier, S. A., & Kumanyika, S. K. (2008). The context for choice: Health implications of targeted food and beverage market ing to African Americans. American Journal of Public Health 98(9), 1 14. Grinde, D. A., & Johansen, B. E. (1995). Ecocide of Native America: Environmental Destruction of Indian Lands and Peoples Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light. Grineski, S. E., Hernandez, A. A. (2010). Landlords, fear, and childrens respiratory health: an untold story of environmental injustice in the central city. Local Environment 15 (3), 199 216. Grijalva, J. M., (2008). Closing the Circle: Environmental Justice in Indian Country Durham, NC: Carolina University Press. Grodzins, M. (1969). The M etropolitan A rea as a R acial P roblem Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Groenewegen, P. P., van den Berg A. E. de Vries S. J., & Verheij R. A. (2006). Vitamin G: effects of green space on health, well being, and social safety. BMC Public Health 6 (1), 149 157. Gunier, R. B., Hertz, A., von Behren, J., & Reynolds, P. (2003). Traffic density in California: Socioeconomic and ethnic differences among potenti ally exposed children. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 13 240246. Guthman, J. (2008). Bringing good food to others: investigating the subjects of alternative food practice. Cultural Geographies 15(4), 431 447. Gwynn, R. C., & Thurston G. D. (2001). The burden of air pollution: Impacts among racial minorities. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(4), 501 506. 175

PAGE 176

Hall, K. (1992). Changing woman, Tukunavi and Coal: Impacts of the energy industry on Navajo and Hopi Reservations. C apitalism Nature Socialism 3 (1), 49 78. Hall, K. (1994). The Impacts of the Energy Industry on the Navajo and Hopi San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Hamilton, J. (1995). Testing for environmental racism: Prejudice, profits, political power. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 14, 107132. Hamilton, W. L., Cook, J. T., Thompson, W. W., Buron, L. F., Frongillo, E. A., Olson, C. M., & Wehler, C. A. (1997). Household Food Security in the United States in 1995: Technical Report of the Food Security Measurement Project. Report prepared for the USDA. Alexandria, VA : Food Consumer Service. Hamm, M. W., & Bellows, A. C. (2003). Community food security and nutrition educators. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 35(1), 37 43. Hanlon, B. (2009). A typology of inner ring suburbs: Class, race, and ethnicity in US suburbia. City & Community 8 (3), 221 246. Harris, S. G., & Harper, B. L. (1997). A Native American exposure scenario. Risk Analysis 17 (6), 789 795. Harrison, J, L. (2011). Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development (Harvard) (2008). The State of Native Nations: Conditions Under U.S. Policies of Self Determination. New York: Oxford University Pr ess. Hayes, L. R. (2000). Are prices higher for the poor in New York City? Journal of Consumer Policy 23(2), 127 152. Hellin g, A. (1998). Changing intrametropolitan accessibility in the US: Evidence from Atlanta. Progress in Planning, 49 (2), 55 107. Helling, A., & Sawicki, D. S. (2003). Race and residential accessibility to shopping and services. Housing Policy Debate, 14(1 2), 69 101. Hendrickson, D., Smith, C., & Eikenberry, N. (2006). Fruit and vegetable access in four low income food deserts communiti es in Minnesota. Agriculture and Human Values 23(3), 371 383. Hilmers, A., Hilmers, D. C., & Dave, J. (2012). Neighborhood d isparities in a ccess to h ealthy f oods and t heir e ffects on e nvironmental j ustice. American Journal of Public Health 102(9), 16441654. 176

PAGE 177

Hinrichs, C. C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies 16 (3), 295 303. Hird, J. A. (1993). Environmental policy and equity: The case of Superfund. Journal of Polic y Analysis and Management, 12(2), 323 343. Hird, J. A. (1994). Superfund: The political Economy of Risk Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hird, J. A., & Reese, M. (1998) The distribution of environmental quality: An empirical analysis. Social Science Quarterly 79 693 716. Hoerner, J. A., & Robinson, N. (2008). A climate of change : African Americans, g lobal w arming, and a j ust climate p olicy for the U.S. Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative. Retrieved from Honneth, A. (1992). Integrity and disrespect: Principles of morality based on the theory of recognition. Political Theory 20(2), 187201. Hood, E. (2005). Disparate dw elling: How poor housing leads to poor health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(5), A311A317. Hooke, R. L. (2000). On the h istory of h umans as g eomorphic a gents. Geology 28, 843846. Hooks, G. & Smith, C. L. (2004). The treadmill of destruction: National sacrifice areas and Native Americans. American Sociological Review, 69 558 575. Hornberg, C., & Pauli, A. (2007). Childhood p overty and e nvironmental j ustice. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Heal th 210 (5), 571580. Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (5), 445456. Houdyshell, M. S. (200 6). Environmental injustice: The need for a new vision of Indian environmental justice. Great Plains Natural Resources Journal, 10, 1 16. Hu, A., Acosta, A., McDaniel, A., & Gittelsohn, J. (2013). Community perspectives on barriers and strategies for promoting locally grown produce from an urban agriculture farm. Health Promotion Practice, 14(1), 69 74. HuddlestonCasas, C., Charnigo, R., & Simmons, L. A. (2009). Food insecurity and maternal depression in rural, low income families: A longitudinal investigation. Public Health Nutrition 12(8), 11331140. Hunold, C. & Young, I. M. (1998). Justice, democracy, and hazardous siting. Political Studies 46 82 95. 177

PAGE 178

Iceland, J., & Weinberg, D. H. (2002). Racial and ethnic residential segregati on in the United States 19802000 Washington, DC: Bureau of Census. Ikeme, J. (2003). Equity, environmental justice and sustainability: incomplete approaches in climate change politics. Global Environmental Change 13 (3), 195 206. Inagami, S., Cohen, D. A., Finch, B. K., & Asch, S. M. (2006). You are where you shop. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 31 (1), 10 17. IPCC. (2007) Summary for policymakers. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. T ignor & H.L. Miller (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Izumi, B. T., Alaimo, K., & Hamm, M. W. (2010). Farm to school programs: Perspectives of school food service professionals. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 42 (2), 83 91. Jacobs, D. E. (2006). A qualitative review of housing hazard assessment protocols i n the United States. Environmental Research 102 13 21. Jacobs, D. E. (2011). Environmental health disparities in housing. American Journal of Public Health 101(S1), 115 122. Jago, R., Baranowski, T., Baranowski, J. C., Cullen, K. W., & Thompson, D. (2007). Distance to food stores & adolescent male fruit and vegetable consumption: mediation effects. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 4 (1), 35 44. Jarosz, L. (2000). Understanding agri food networks as social relations. Agriculture and Human Values 17(3), 279283. Jarosz, L. (2008). The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in Metropolitan areas. Journal of Rural Studies 24(3), 231 244. Jeffrey, R. W., & French, S. A. (1998). Epidemic obesity in the Un ited States: Are fast f oods and television viewing contributing? American Journal of Public Health, 88(2), 277 280. Jerrett, M., Burnett, R. T., Kanaroglou, P., Eyles, J., Finkelstein, N., Giovis, C., & Brook, J. R. (2001). A GIS environmental justice anal ysis of particulate air pollution in Hamilton, Canada. Environment and Planning A, 33(6), 955973. Jetter, K. M., & Cassady, D. L. (2006). The availability and cost of healthier food alternatives. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(1), 38 44. 178

PAGE 179

Johnston, J., Biro, A., & MacKendrick, N. (2009). Lost in the supermarket: The corporateo rganic f oodscape and the struggle for f ood d emocracy. Antipode, 41(3), 509 532. Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., Calvert, T. (2002). Woodland spaces and edges: T heir impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape Urban Plan, 60 135 150. Jyoti, D. F., Frongillo, E. A., & Jones, S. J. (2005). Food insecurity affects school childrens academic performance, weight gain, and social skills. The Journal of Nut rition 135 (12), 2831 2839. Kalof, L., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Race, g ender and e nvironmentalism: The a typical v alues and b eliefs of White m en. Race, Gender & Class 9 (2), 1 19. Kaswan, A. (1997). Environmental justice: Bridging the gap between environmental laws and justice. The American University Law Review 47 221 300. Kaswan, A. (1999). Environmental l aws: Grist for the e qual p rotection m ill. University of Colorado Law Review, 70, 387 482. Kaufman, P. R., MacDonald, J. M., Lutz S. M., & Smallwood, D. M. (1997). Do the poor pay more for food? Item selection and price differences affect low income household food costs Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service. Kawachi, I., Daniels, N., Robinson, D.E., (2005). Health disparities by race and class: Why both matter. Health Affairs 24(2), 343 352. Khisty, C. J. (2000). Citizen involvement in the transportation planning process: What it is and what it ought to be. J ournal of Advanced Transportation, 34(1), 12542. King, C. S., Felty, K. M., & ONeill, S. B. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review 58(4), 317 326. Kirschenmann, F., Stevenson, S., Buttel, F., Lyson, T., & Duffy, M. (2009 ). Why Worry About the Agriculture of the Middle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Klerman, J. A., & Danielson, C. (2011). The transformation of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Journal of P olicy Analysis and Management 30(4), 863888. Kohlhuber, M., Heirich, J. ,van den Hazel, P., Zuurbier, M. Bistrup, M. L., Koppe, J., Bolte, G. (2006). Childrens environmental health: Why should social disparities be considered? Acta Paediatrica, 95 (Supp 453), 2630. 179

PAGE 180

Konisky, D. M. (2009a). Inequities in enforcement: Environmental justice and government performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28(1), 102 121. Konisky, D. M. (2009b). The limited effects of Federal environmental justice policy on state enforcement. The Policy Studies Journal 37(3), 475 496. Konisky, D. M., & Shario, T. S. (2010). Examining environmental justice in facility level regulatory enforcement. Social Science Quarterly 91(3), 835 855. Korc, M. E. (1996). A socioec onomic assessment of human exposure to ozone in the South Coast Air Basin. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 46(6), 547 557. Kraft, M. E., & Scheberle, D. (1995). Environmental justice and the allocation of risk: The case of lead and public health. Public Studies Journal 23(1), 113 122. Krebs Smith, S. M., Guenther, P. M., Subar, A. F., Kirkpatrick, S. I., & Dodd, K. W. (2010). Americans do not meet federal dietary recommendations. The Journal of nutrition, 140 (10), 18321838. Kreiger, J ., & Higgins, D.L. (2002). Housing and h ealth: Time again for public health action. American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 758768. Krieg, E. J., & Faber, R. J. (2004). Not so Black and White: E nvironmental justice and cumulative impact assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24, 667694. Kriesel, W., Centner, T. J., & Keeler, A. G. (1996). Neighborhood Exposure to Toxic Kuehn, R. (1994). Remedying the u nequal e nforcement of e nvironmental l aws. St. Johns Journal of Legal Commentary 9 625 668. Kuehn, R. (2000). A taxonomy of environmental justice. Environmental Law Reporter 30, 1068110703 Kuletz, V. (1998). The Tainted Desert: Environmental and Social Ruin in the American West New York: Routledge. Kumanyika, S. K. (1994). Obesity in minority populations: An epidemiological report. Obesity Research, 2 (2), 166 82. Kumanyika, S. K. (2008). Environmental influences on childhood obesity: ethnic and cultural influences in context. Physiology & Behavior 9 4 (1), 61 70. Kumanyika, S. K., & Grier, S. (2006). Targeting interventions for ethnic minority and low income populations. The Future of Children, 16(1), 187207. 180

PAGE 181

Kurtz, H. (2007). Gender and environmental justice in Louisiana: Blurring the boundaries of public and private spheres. Gender, Place, Culture, 14 (4), 409 426. Kwate, N. O. A. (2008). Fried chicken and fresh apples: racial segregation as a fundamental cause of fast food density in black neighborhoods. Health & Place, 14(1), 32 44. LaDuke, W. (1999). All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life, Boston, MA: South End Press. Lake, R. W. (1996). Volunteers, N IMBY s, and e nvironmental j ustice: Dilemmas of d emocratic p ractice. Antipode, 28(2), 160174. Lang, T., & Caraher, M. (1998). Access to healthy foods: part II. Food poverty and shopping deserts: what are the implications for health promotion policy and practice? Health Education Journal 57 (3), 202 211. Langford, M., & Higgs, G. (2006). Measuring potential access to primary heal thcare services: the influence of alternative spatial representations of population. The Professional Geographer 58(3), 294 306. Laraia, B. A., SiegaRiz, A. M., Kaufman, J. S., & Jones, S. J. (2004). Proximity of supermarkets is positively associated wit h diet quality index for pregnancy. Preventive Medicine, 39(5), 869875. Larsen, K., & Gilliland, J. (2008). Mapping the evolution of food deserts' in a Canadian city: Supermarket accessibility in London, Ontario, 19612005. International Journal of Healt h Geographics 7 (1), 16 32. Larson, N. I., Story, M. T., & Nelson, M. C. (2009). Neighborhood environments disparities in access to healthy foods in the US. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(1), 74 81. Laurian, L. (2004). Public participation in decision making: Findings from communities facing toxic waste cleanup. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 5365. LaVeist, T. A., & Wallace Jr., J. M. (2000). Health risk and inequitable distribution of liquor stores in African American neighborhoods. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 613617. Lavelle, M., & Coyle, M. (1992). Unequal protection: The racial divide in environmental law. The National Law Journal 15(3), S 2 S 12. Lawrence III, C. (1987). The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Wr estling with Unconscious Racism. Stanford Law Review 39, 317377. 181

PAGE 182

Lawrence III, C. (2008). Unconscious racism revisited: Reflections on the impact and origins of "The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection." Connecticut Law Review 40(4), 931977. Lazarus, R. J. (1993). Pursuing environmental justice: The distributional effects of environmental protection. Northwestern University Law Review 87 787857. Lee, B. L. (1997). Civil rights and legal remedies: A plan of action. In R. D Bullard & G. S. Johnson (Eds.) Just Transportation: Dismantling Race and Class Barriers to Mobility (pp. 15172). Gabriola Island, British Columbia: Island Press. Lee, C. (1992). Proceedings: The First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit New York: United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. Lee, C. (2002). Environmental justice: Building a unified vision of health and the environment. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (Supplement 2), 141144. Lee, H., Harris, K. M., & Gordon Larson P. (2009). Life course perspectives on the link between poverty and obesity during the transition to young adulthood. Population Research and Policy Review 28 505 532. Lee, R. E., Heinrich, K. M., Medina, A. V., Regan, G. R., ReeseSmith, J. Y., Jokura, Y., & Maddock, J E. (2010). A picture of the healthful food environment in two diverse urban cities. Environmental Health Insights 4 49 60. Lerman, B. R. (2006). Mandatory inclusionary zoning The answer to the affordable housing problem. Boston College Environmental Af fairs Law Review 33, 383 416. Lester, J., Allen, D., & Hill, K. (2001). Environmental Injustice in the United States: Myths and Realities Boulder, CO: Westview. Levedahl, J. W., & Oliveira, V. (1999). Dietary impacts of food assistance programs. America s Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences 307 330. Lewis, L. B., Sloane, D. C., Nascimento, L. M., Diamant, A. L., Guinyard, J. J., Yancey, A., & Flynn, G. (2005). African Americans access to healthy food options in South Los Angeles restaurants. America n Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 668 673. Liese, A. D., Weis, K. E., Pluto, D., Smith, E., & Lawson, A. (2007). Food store types, availability, and cost of foods in a rural environment. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 107 (11), 19161923. Li sabeth, L. D., Snchez, B. N., Escobar, J., Hughes, R., Meurer, W. J., Zuniga, B., Morgenstern, L. B. (2010). The food environment in an urban MexicanAmerican community. Health & place, 16 (3), 598 616. 182

PAGE 183

Little, R. E. (2013, March 18). Farmworkers protest outside Publix headquarters in Lakeland. Retrieved from pr otest outsidepublix headquarters/ Liu, G. C., Wilson, J. S., Qi, R., & Ying, J. (2007). Green neighborhoods, food retail and childhood overweight: differences by population density. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21 (4s), 317 325. Lockie, S., & Kitt o, S. (2000). Beyond the f arm g ate: Productionconsumption n etworks and a gri f ood r esearch. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (1), 3 19. Lopez, R. P. (2007). Neighborhood risk factors for obesity. Obesity 15(8), 21112119. Lozoff, B., Jimenez, E. & Wolff, A. W. (1991). Long term developmental outcomes of infants with iron deficiency. New England Journal of Medicine, 10, 687 694. Lynch, M., Stretesky, P., & Burns, R. (2004). Determinants of environmental law violation fines against petroleum refineries: Race, ethnicity, income, and aggregation effects. Society and Natural Resources 17, 333 347. MacDonald, J. M., & Nelson Jr., P. (1991). Do the poor still pay more? Food price variations in large metropolitan areas. Journal of Urban Economics 30(3), 344 359. Macias T. (2008). Working Toward a Just, Equitable, and Local Food System: The Social Impact of Community Based Agriculture. Social Science Quarterly 89(5), 10861101. Macintyre, S. (2007). Deprivation amplification revisited; or, is it always true that poorer places have poorer access to resources for healthy diets and physical activity? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4 (1), 3238. Macintyre, S., McKay, L., Cummins, S., & Burns, C. (2005). Outof home food outlets and area deprivation: C ase study in Glasgow, UK. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2 (1), 16 23. Maller, C., M. Townsend, A. Pryor, P. Brown, & St Leger, L. (20 06). Healthy nature healthy people: Contact with nature as an upstream health promotion intervention or populations. Health Promotion International, 21, 45 54. Maher, T. (1998). Environmental o ppression: Who is t argeted for t oxic e xposure. Journal of Black Studies 28(3), 357 366. Martens, P., Kovats, R. S., Nijhof, S., de Vries, P., Livermore, M. T. J., Bradley, D.J., McMichael, A.J. (1999). Climate change and future populations at risk of malaria. Global Environmental ChangeHuman and Policy Dimensions, 9 (S), 89 107. 183

PAGE 184

Martinez Alier, J. (2002). Paper prepared for The United Nations Conference on The Political Economy of Sustainable Development: Environmental Conflict, Participation and Movements at University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg: The Environmentalism of the Poor New York, NY: United Nations. Massey, D. S. (2012). Reflections on the Dimensions of Segregation. Social Forces, 91 (1), 39 43. Matte, T. D., & Jacobs, D. E. (2000). Housing and health: Current issues and implications for research and programs. Journal of Urban Health 77 (1), 7 25. Mayer, B., Flocks, J., & Monaghan, P. (2010). The role of employers and supervisors in promoting pesticide safety behavior among Florida farmworkers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53(8), 81 4 824. McCaull, J. (1976). Discriminatory air pollution: If poor, dont breathe. Environment 18 2631. McGinley, P. C. (2004). From p ick and shovel to m ountaintop r emoval: Environmental i njustice in the Appalachian c oalfields. Environmental Law Review 34, 21 106. McGurty, E. M. (2000). Warren County, NC, and the emergence of the Environmental Justice Movement: Unlikely coalitions and shared meanings in local collective action. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 373 387. McMichael, A. J., Nyong, A., Corval an, C. (2008). Global environmental change and health: impacts, inequalities, and the health sector. British Medical Journal 336 191194. McMillan, L. J. (2011). Native Peoples and water rights: Irrigation, dams and the law in Western Canada. Canadian Jo urnal of Law and Society 26(3), 666 668. Mennis, J. & Jordan, L. (2005). The distribution of environmental equity: Exploring spatial nonstationarity in multivariate models of air toxic releases. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95, 249 2 68. Messer, L. C., Laraia, B. A., Kaufman, J. S., Eyster, J., Holzman, C., Culhane, J., OCampo, P. (2006). The development of a standardized neighborhood deprivation index. Journal of Urban Health 83 (6), 10411062. Meyerhoefer, C. D., & Pylypchuk, Y. (2008). Does participation in the food stamp program increase the prevalence of obesity and health care spending? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90, 287 305. Mills, P.K., Kwong, S. (2001). Cancer incidence in the United Farm Workers of America (UFW): 1987 1997. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 40 596 603. 184

PAGE 185

Mines, R., Gabbard, S.M., & Stewart, G. (1997). A Profile of US Farm Workers: Demographics, Household Composition, Income and Use of Services Based on data from the National Agricultural Workers Survey. Washington, DC: U nited S tates Department of Labor. Miranda, M.L., Edwards, S.E., Keating, M.H., & Paul, C.J. (2011). Making the Environmental Justice Grade: The relative burden of air pollution exposure in the United States. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8, 17551771. Mitchell, J., Thomas, D., & Cutter, S. (1999). Dumping in Dixie revisited: The e volution of e nvironmental i njustices in South Carolina. Social Science Quarterly 80(2), 229243. Mjelde, J. W., Dudensing, R., Cherrington, L. K., Jin, Y., Israel, A. A., & Chen, J. (2012). The Value of Public Transportation for Improving the Quality of Life for the Rural Elderly College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University. Mohai P. (1995). The demographics of dumping revisited: examining the impact of alternate methodologies in environmental justice research. Virginia Environmental Law Journal 14, 615 52. Mohai, P., & Bryant, B. (1992). Environmental racism: Reviewing the evidence. In B. Bryant and P. Mohai (Eds.) Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse (pp. 164 ). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Mohai, P., Kweon, B.S., Lee, S., & Ard, K. (2011). Air pollution around schools is linked to poorer st udent health and academic performance. Health Affairs 30(5), 852 862. Mohai, P., Lantz, P. M., Morenoff, J., House, J. S., & Mero, R. P. (2009). Racial and socioeconomic disparities in residential proximity to polluting industrial facilities: Evidence from the Americans Changing Lives Study. American Journal of Public Health, 99(3), 649656. Mohai, P., Pellow, D., & Roberts, J. T., (2009) Environmental j ustice. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 34, 405 430. Mohai, P., & Saha, R. (2006). Reassessing racial and socioeconomic disparities in environmental justice research. Demography 43(2), 383 399. Mohai, P., & Saha, R. (2007). Racial i nequality in the d istribution of h azardous w aste: A n ational l evel r eassessment Social Problems 54, 343 370. Mokdad, A. H., Ford, E. S., Bowman, B. A., Dietz, W. H., Vinicor, F., Bales, V. S., & Marks, J. S. (2003). Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity related health risk factors, 2001. Journal of the American Medical Association 289(1), 76 79. 185

PAGE 186

Mokdad, A. H., Marks, J. S., Stroup, D. F., & Gerberding, J. L. (2004). Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. Jour nal of the American Medical Association 291 (10), 12381245. Moore, L. V. & Diez Roux, A. V. (2006). Associations of neighborhood characteristics with the location and type of food stores. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2): 325331. Moore, L. V., Diez Roux, A. V., & Brines, S. (2008). Comparing perceptionbased and geographic information system (GIS) based characterizations of the local food environment. Journal of Urban Health, 85(2), 206216. Morland, K., Diez Roux, A. V., & Wing, S (2006). Supermarkets, other food stores, and obesity: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30 (4), 333 339. Morland, K. & Evenson, K. R. (2009). Obesity prevalence and the local food environment. Health & Place 15(2), 491495. Morland, K., Wing, S., Diez Roux, A., & Poole, C. ( 2002). Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(1), 23 29. Morello Frosch, R. (1997). The politics of reproductive hazards in the workplace: Class, gender, and the history of lead exposure in the workplace. International Journal of Health Services 27 (3), 501521. Morello Frosch, R., Pastor Jr, M., Porras, C., & Sadd, J. (2002). Env ironmental justice and regional inequality in southern California: implications for future research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(Suppl 2), 149. Morello Frosch, R., Pastor Jr M., & Sadd, J. (2001). Environmental justice in Southern Californias riskscape: The distribution of air toxics exposure and health risks among diverse communities. Urban Affairs Review 36 551 578. Morris, P. M., Neuhauser, L., & Campbell, C. (1992). Food security in rural America: A study of the availability and costs of food. Journal of Nutrition Education, 24 (1), 52S 58S. Moses M. (1989). Pesticiderelated health problems and farmworkers. American Association of Occupational Health Nursing Journal 37,115 130. Moss, M. (2013). Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us Toronto, Ontario: Signal. Muller, M., Tagtow, A., Roberts, S. L., & MacDougall, E. (2009). Aligning food systems policies to advance public health. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 4 (3 4), 2 25 240. 186

PAGE 187

Murakami, E., & Young, J. (1997). Daily Travel by Persons with Low Income. Washington, DC: US Federal Highway Administration. Napton, M. L., & Day, F. A. (1992). Polluted n eighborhoods in Texas: Who l ives t here? Environment and Behavior, 24(4), 508 526. National Center for Education Statistics (2008). Statistical Trends in the Education of American Indians and Alaska Natives Washington, DC: US Department of Education. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC). (2012). Retrieved f rom Needleman, H. (2004). Lead poisoning. Annual Review of Medicine, 55, 209 222. Nelson, K., Cunningham, W., Andersen, R., Harr ison, G. & Gelberg, L. (2001). Is food insufficiency associated with health status and health care utilization among adults with diabetes? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 404411. Nielson, S. J., & Popkin, B. M. (2004). Changes in beverage intake between 1977 and 2001. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 27 (3), 204 210. Nieslon, T., & Hansen, K. (2007). Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & Place 13 839 850. Nonas, C., Matte, T. D., Chideya, S., & Frieden, T. R. (2009). Purchasing behavior and calorie information at fast food chains in New York City. American Journal of Public Health 98(8), 14571459. Northridge, M.E., Stover, G.N., Rosenthal, J.E., Sherard, D. (2003). Environmental equity and health: Understanding complexity and moving forward. American Journal of Public Health, 93 (2), 209 214. Novotny, P. (2000). Where We Live, Work, and Play: The Environmental Justice Movement and the Struggle for a New Env ironmentalism Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Nyberg, B.F., & Pershagen G. (2000). Epidemiologic studies on the health effects of ambient particulate air pollution. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, & Health, 26(Supplement 1), 4989. Oakes, J. M., Anderton, D.L. & Anderson, A.B. ( 1996). A l ongitudinal a nalysis of e nvironmental e quity in communities with h azardous w aste f acilities. Social Science Research, 25, 125148. 187

PAGE 188

Odoms Young, A. M., Zenk, S., & Mason, M. (2009). Measuring food availability and access in African American communities: Implications for intervention and policy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4), S145 S150. Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Curtin, L. R., McDowell, M. A., Tabak, C. J., & Flegal, K. M. (2006). Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 19992004. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 15491555. Ogden, C. L., Flegal, K. M., Carroll, M. D., & Johnson, C. L. (2002). Prevalence and trends in overweight among US children and adoles cents, 1999 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288 1728 1732. Olson, C. M. (1999). Nutrition and health outcomes associated with food insecurity and hunger in the U.S. Journal of Nutrition 129 S21 S245. Omi, M., & Winant, H. A. (1994). Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s New York, NY: Routledge. ONeill, C. A. (2001). Variable j ustice: Environmental standards, contaminated fish, and acceptable risk to Native peoples. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 19 3 118. ONeill, C. A. (2003). Risk avoidance, cultural discrimination, and environmental justice for Indigenous Peoples. Ecology Law Quarterly, 30, 1 58. ONeill, C. A. (2008). Environmental justice in the tribal context: A madness to EPAs method. Env ironmental Law 38 495536. Opp, S. M. (2012).Environmental Justice and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act inspection and enforcement process. International Review of Public Administration, 17 (1), 179192. Orfield, M. (2005). Land use and housing policies to reduce concentrated poverty and racial segregation. Fordham Urban Law Review 33(3), 101 159. ORourke, D. & Connolly, S. (2003). Just oil? The distribution of environmental and social impact of oil production and consumption. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 28, 587 617. Pa avola, J., & Adger, W. N. (2006). Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecological Economics, 56, 594 609 Page, E. A. (2007). Fairness on the day after tomorrow: Justice, reciprocity and global climate change. Political Studies 55, 225 242. Papas, M. A., Alberg, A. J., Ewing, R., Helzlsouer, K. J., Gary, T. L., & Klassen, A. C. (2007). The built environment and obesity. Epidemiological Review, 29, 129 143. 188

PAGE 189

Parks, B. C. & Roberts, J. T., (2008). Inequality and the gl obal climate regime: Breaking the NorthSouth impasse. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 21(4), 621 648. Pasternak, J. (2010). Yellow Dirt: An American Story of a Poisoned Land and a People Betrayed. Free Press: New York. Pastor, M., Bullard, R. J., Boyce, J. K., Fothergill, A., Morello Frosch, R., & Wright, B. (2006). Environment, disaster, and race after Katrina. Race, Poverty, and Environment, 13(1), 21 26. Pastor, M., Sadd, J., & Hipp, J. (2001). Which came first? Toxic facilities, minority move in, and environmental justice. Journal of Urban Affairs 23(1), 1 21. Pastor, M., Sadd, J., & MorelloFrosch, R. (2002). Whos minding the kids? Pollution, public schools, and environmental justice in Los Angeles. Social Science Quarterly 83(1), 263280. Patz, J. A., Gibbs, H. K., Foley, J. A., Rogers, J. V., & Smith, K. R. (2007). Climate change and global health: Quantifying a growing ethical crisis. EcoHealth, 4 397 405. Pearce, J., Blakely, T., Witten, K., & Bartie, P. (2007 ). Neighborhood deprivation and access to fast food retailing. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), 375382. Pearce, J., Hiscock, R., Blakely, T., & Witten, K. (2009). A national study of the association between neighbourhood access to fast food outlets and the diet and weight of local residents. Health & Place, 15(1), 193 197. Pearce, J., Kingham, S., & Zawar Reza, P. (2006). Every breath you take? Environmental justice and air pollution in Christchurch, New Zealand. Environment and Planning A 38 919 938. Pearce, J., Witten, K., Hiscock, R., Blakely, T. (2007). Are socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods deprived of healthrelated community resources? International Journal of Epidemiology 36, 348 355. Pelletier, D. L., Olson, C. M. & Frongillo, E. A. (2012). Food i nsecurity, h unger, and u ndernutrition. In J. W. Erdman, I. A. Macdonald and S. H. Zeisel (Eds.), Present Knowledge in Nutrition Tenth Edition (pp. 1165 1181). Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Pellow, D. N. (2000). Environmental i nequality f ormation: Toward a t heory of e nvironmental i njustice American Behavioral Scientist 43(4), 581601. Pellow, D. N. (2002). Garbage Wars: The Struggle for Environmental Justice in Chicago. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press. 189

PAGE 190

Pellow, D. N. (2004). The politics of illegal dumping: An environmental justice framework. Qualitative Sociology, 27 (4), 511 525. Pellow, D. N., Weinberg, A., & Schnaiberg, A. (2001). The environmental justice Movement: Equitable allocation of the costs and benefits of environmental management outcomes. Social Justice Research, 14 (4), 423 439. Perfecto, I., & Valasquez, B. (1992). Farm workers: Among the least protected. EPA Journal 18, 13 14. Perlin, S. A., Seltzer, R. W., Creason, J., & Sexton, K. (1995). Distribution of i ndustrial a ir e missions by i ncome and r ace in the United States: An a pproach using the Toxic Release Inventory. Environmental Science and Technology, 29(1), 69 -80. Pfeffer, N., Wen, F. H., Ikhrata, H. M., & Gosnell, J. R.. (2002). Environmental justice in the transportation planning process Southern California perspective. Transportation Research Record, 1792, 36 42. Pollitt, E. (1988). Developmental impact of nutri tion on pregnancy, infancy, and childhood: public health issues in the United States. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 15, 33 80. Pollock, P. H., III, & Vittas, M. E. (1995). Who b ears the burdens of environmental pollution? Race, e thnicity, and environmental equity in Florida. Social Science Quarterly, 76(2), 294 310. Pope, C. A. (1999). Mortality and air pollution: associations persist with continued advances in research methodology. Environmental Health Perspectives 107, 613 614. Posner, E. A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Climate change justice. Georgetown Law Review, 96, 15651612. Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. L. (2000). The food system: A stranger to the planning field. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(2), 113 1 24. Powell, L. M., Auld, M. C., Chaloupka, F. J., O'Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2007). Associations between access to food stores and adolescent body mass index. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(4), s301s307. Powell, L. M., Chaloupka, F. J., & Bao, Y. (2007). The availability of fast food and full service restaurants in the United States: associations with neighborhood characteristics. American Journal of P reventive M edicine 33 (4), S240 S245. Powell, L. M., Slater, S., Mirtcheva, D., Bao, Y., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2007). Food store availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States. Preventive Medicine, 44(3), 189195. 190

PAGE 191

Pucher, J., Evans, T., & Wenger, J. (1998). Socioeconomics of urban travel: Evidence from the 1995 NPTS. Transportation Quarterly 52(3), 15 33. Pucher, J., & Renne, J. L. (2003). Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transportation Quarterly 57(3), 49 77. Pulido, L. (1996) Environmentalism and Social Justice: Two Chicano Struggles i n the Southwest Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Pulido, L. (2000). Rethinking environmental racism: White privilege and urban development in Southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(1), 12 40. Pulido, L., & Pena, D. G. (1998). Environmentalism and positionality: The early pesticide campaign of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, 19651971. Race, Gender & Class, 6(1), 33 50. Quandt S.A., Hernndez Valero, M.A., Grzywacz J.G., Hovey J.D., Gonzales M., & Arcury, T.A. (2006). Workplace, household, and personal predictors of pesticide exposure for farmworkers. Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (6), 943952. Raja, S., Ma, C., & Yadav, P. (2008). Beyond food deserts measuring and mapping racial disparities in neighborhood food environments. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27 (4), 469 482. Ranco, D. J., ONiell, C. A., Donatuto, J., & Harper, B. L. (2011). Environmental justice, American Indians and the cultural dilemma: Developing environmental management for Tribal health and well being. Environmental Justice 4 (4), 221 230. Ratcliffe, C., McKernan, S. M., & Zhang, S. (2011). How m uch d oes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program r educe f ood i n security? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(4), 10821098. Rauh, V.A., Chew, G.L., Garfinkle, R.S. (2002). Deteriorated housing contributes to high cockroach allergen levels in inner city households. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (Supp lement 2), 323327. Rauh, V. A., Landrigan, P. J., Luz, C. (2008). Housing and health: Intersection of poverty and environmental exposures. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1136, 276 288. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Reed, J., Frazao, E., & Itskowitz, R. (2004). How much do Americans pay for fruits and vegetables? Washington, DC: US DA Economic Research Service. 191

PAGE 192

Reeves, M., Schafer, K.S. (2003). Greater risks, fewer rights: U.S. farmworkers and pesticides. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 9 30 39. Reidpath, D. D., Burns, C., Garrard, J., Mahoney, M., & Townsend, M. (2002). An ecological study of the relationship between social and environmental determinants of obesity. Health and Place, 8 (2), 141 145. Reinert, R. E., Knuth, B. A., Kamrin, M. A., & Stober, Q. J. (1996). A review of the basic principles and assumptions used to issue fish consumption advisories. Americ an Fisheries Society Symposium 16, 98 106. Reisig, V. M. T., & Hobbiss, A. (2000). Food deserts and how to tackle them: A study of one city's approach. Health Education Journal 59(2), 137149. Rey, D., & Neuhuser, M. (2011). WilcoxonSignedRank Test. In International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science (pp. 16581659). Berlin: Springer. Ringquist, E. J. (1997). Equity and the Distribution of Environmental Risk: The Case of TRI Facilities. Social Science Quarterly 78, 811 829. Ringquist, E. J. (1998). A question of justice: Equity in environmental litigation, 1974 1991. Journal of Politics 60, 11481165. Ringquist, E. J., (2005). Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: A metaanalysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24 (2) 223 247. Rissanen, T. H., Voutilainen, S., Virtanen, J. K., Venho, B., Vanharanta, M., Mursu, J., & Salonen, J. T. (2003). Low intake of fruits, berries and vegetables is associated with excess mortality in men: the Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor (KIHD) Study. The Journal of Nutrition, 133(1), 199204. Rittner, B., & Kirk, A. B. (1995). Health care and public transportation use by poor and frail elderly people. Social Work 40(3), 365373. Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. C. (2007). A Climate of Injustice: Gl obal Inequality, NorthSouth Politics, and Climate Policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Robinson, C. K. (1946). Relationship between condition of dwellings and rentals, by race. Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics 22(3), 296 302. Robyn, L. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and technology: Creating environmental justice in the twenty first century. American Indian Quarterly, 26(2), 198220. Romley, J. A., Cohen, D., Ringel, J., & Sturm, R. (2007). Alcohol and environmental justice: the density of liquor stores and bars in urban neighborhoods in the United States. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 68 (1), 48 55. 192

PAGE 193

Rose, D., & Richards, R. (2004). Food store access and household fruit and vegetable use among participants in the US Food Stamp Program. Public Health Nutrition 7 (08), 1081 1088. Rose Jacobs, R. Black, M. H., Casey, P. H., Cook, J. T., Cutts, D. B., Chilton, M., Frank, D. A. (2008). Household food insecurity: associations with at risk infant and toddler development. Pediatrics 121 65 72. Royster, J. V. (2008). Practical sovereignty, political sovereignty, and the Indian TribalEnergy Development and Self Determination Act. University of Tulsa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011 01. Rowan, G. T., & Fridgen, C. (2003). Brownfields and environmental justice: The threats and challenges of contamination. Environmental Practice 5 (1), 68 61. Ruel, M. T., Garrett, J. L., Hawkes, C., & Cohen, M. J. (2010). The food, fuel, and financial crises affect the urban and rural poor disproportionately: A review of the evidence. Journal of Nutrition, 140(1), 170S 176S. Rundle, A., Neckerman, K. M., Freeman, L., Lovasi, G. S., Purciel, M., Quinn, J., Weiss, C. (2009). Neighborhood food environment and walkability predict obesity in New York City. Environmental Health Perspectives 117( 3), 442447. Rust, G.S. (1990). Health status of migrant farmworkers: A literature review and commentary. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 12131217. Sachs, N. (1996). The Mescalero Apache Indians and monitored retrievable storage of spent nuclear fuel: A study in environmental ethics. Natural Resources Journal 36, 881912. Sadd, J. L., Pastor, M., Jr., Boer, J. T., & Snyder, L. D. (1999). Every breath you take: The Demography of toxic air releases in Californi a. Economic Development Quarterly, 13(2), 107 123. Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., Frank, L. D., Couch, S. D., Zhou, C., Colburn, T., Cain, K. L., Chapman, J., & Glanz, K. (2012). Obesogenic neighborhood environments, child and parent obesity: The neighborhood impact on kids study. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 42(5), e57 e64. Sagar, A.D., & Banuri, T., (1999). In fairness to current generations: Lost voices in the climate debate. Energy Policy 27 509 514. Saha R., & Mohai, P. (2005). Historical context and hazardous waste facility siting: Understanding temporal patterns in Michigan. Social Problems 52, 618648 Salazar, D. J., & Oliv er, N. (1998). Environmental justice and natural resource management in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Science, 72, 52 56. 193

PAGE 194

Sawicki, D., & Moody, M. (2000). Developing transportation alternatives for welfare recipients moving to work. Journal of American Planning Associ ation 66 (3), 306 318. Schafft, K. A., Jensen, E. B., & Hinrichs, C. C. (2009). Food deserts and overweight schoolchildren: Evidence from Pennsylvania. Rural Sociology 74 (2), 153177. Schmeiser, M. D. (2012). The impact of long term participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program on child obesity. Health Economics 21(4), 386 404. Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and policy theories. Environmental Politics 13 (3), 517540. Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements and Nature. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Schlosberg, D., & Carruthers, D. (2010). Indigenous struggles, environmental justice, and community capabilities. Global Environmental Politics 10 (4), 1235. Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American meal. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Schroeder, R., St. Martin, K., & Albert, K. (2006). Political ecology in North America: Discovering the Third World within? Geoforum 37(1), 163168. Schroeder, R., St. Martin, K., Wilson, B., & Debarati, S. (2008). Third World environmental j ustice. Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 21(7), 547 555. Schweitzer, L., & Valenzuela, A. (2004). Environmental justice and transportation: the claims and the evidence. Journal of Planning Literature, 18 (4), 383 398. Scott, R. (2010). Removing Mountains: Extracting Nature and Identity in the Appalachian Coalfields Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Selfa, T., & Qazi, J. (2005). Place, taste or faceto face? Understanding producer consumer networks in local food systems in Washington State. Agriculture and Human Values 22(4), 451464. Seligman, H. K., Laraia, B. A., & Kushel, M. B. (2010). Food insecurity is associated with chronic disease among low income NHANES participants. The Journal of Nutrition 140 (2), 304 310. Sesinger, D.P. (1992). Health status and needs of migrant farmworkers in the United States: a literature review. Journal of Rural Health, 8 (3), 22723 4. 194

PAGE 195

Sexton, K., & Adgate, J.L. (1999). Looking at environmental justice from an environmental health perspective. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9 3 8. Shaffer, A. (2002). The persistence of LA's grocery gap: The need for a new food policy and approach to market development. UEP Faculty & UEPI Staff Scholarship. Retrieved from Sharfstein, J., Sandel, M., Kahn, R., & Bauchner, H. (2001). Is child health at risk while families wait for housing vouchers? American Journal of Public Health, 91 1191 1192. Sharkey, J. R., & Horel, S. (2008). Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and minority composition are associated with better potential spatial access to the groundtruthed food environment in a large rural area. The Journal of Nutrition 138 (3), 620 627. Short, A., Guthman, J., & Raskin, S. (2007). Food deserts, oases, or mirages? Small markets and community food security in the San Francis co Bay Area. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26 (3), 352 364. Siefert, K. Heflin, C. M., Corcoran, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (2004). Food insufficiency and physical and mental health in a longitudinal survey of welfare recipients. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45 171 186. Siefert, K. Heflin, C. M., Corcoran, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (2008). Food insufficiency and the physical and mental health of low income women. Women & Health 32 (1 2), 159177. Singh, G. K., Kogan, M. D., Van Dyck, P. C., & Siahpush, M. (2008). Racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and behavioral determinants of childhood and adolescent obesity in the United States: A nalyzing independent and joint associations. Annals of E pidemiology, 18 (9), 682. Skalicky, A. Meyers, A. F., Adams, W. G., Yang, Z., Cook, J. T., & Frank, D. A. (2006). Child food insecurity and iron deficiency anemia in low income infants and toddlers in the United States Maternal and Child Health Journal, 10(2), 177 185. Sloane, D. C., Diamant, A. L., Lewis, L. B., Yancey, A. K., Flynn, G., Nascimento, L. M., Cousineau, M. R. (2003). Improving the nutritional resource environment for healthy living through community based participatory research. Journal of General Internal Medicine 18 (7), 568 575. Smith, T., Sonnenfeld, D., A., & Pellow, D. N. (2006). Challenging the Chip: Labor Rights and Environmental Justice in the Global Electronics Industry. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 195

PAGE 196

Smoyer Tomic, K. E., Spence, J. C., & Amrhein, C. (2006). Food d eser ts in the p rairies? Supermarket a ccessibility and n eighborhood n eed in Edmonton, Canada. The Professional Geographer 58(3), 307 326. Steg, L. & Gifford, R. (2004). Sustainable transportation and quality of life. Journal of Transport Geography 13(1) 59 69. Stender, S., Dyerberg, J., & Astrup, A. (2007). Fast food: unfriendly and unhealthy. International Journal of Obesity 31 (6), 887890. Stewart, H., Hyman, J., Frazo, E., Buzby, J. C., & Carlson, A. (2011). Can l ow i ncome Americans a fford to satisfy MyPyramid f ruit and v egetable g uidelines? Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 43(3), 173179. Stoll, M. A. (2005). Job Sprawl and the Spatial Mismatch between Blacks and Jobs Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute. Stretesky, P., & Hogan, M. ( 1998). Environmental justice: An analysis of superfund sites in Florida. Social Problems, 45(2), 268 -287. Stretesky, P. & Lynch, M. J. (1999). Environmental justice and the predictions of distance to accidental chemical releases in Hillsborough County, Florida. Social Science Quarterly, 80 4, 830 844. Stretesky, P. & Lynch, M. J. (2002). Environmental hazards and school segregation in Hillsborough County, Florida, 19871999. The Sociological Quarterly 43(4), 553 573. Stunkard, A. J. (1988). The Salmon lecture. Some perspectives on human obesity: its causes. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 64(8), 902923. Sturm, R., & Datar, A. (2005). Body mass index in elementary school children, metropolitan area food prices and food outlet density. Public Health 119(12), 10591068. Suagee, D. B. (1994). Turtles war party: An Indian allegory on environmental justice. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 9 461 497. Sunyer J. (2001). Urban air pollution and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A review. European Respiratory Journal 17(5), 10241033. Swinburn, B., & Egger, G. (2002). Preventive strategies against weight gain and obesity. Obesity Reviews 3 (4), 289 301. Szasz, A., & Meuser, M. (1997). E nvironmental inequalities: Literature review and proposals for new directions in research and theory. Current Sociology 45 99 120. 196

PAGE 197

Sze, J., & London, J. (2008). Environmental justice at the crossroads. Sociology Compass 2 (4), 13311354. Tai, S. (1999). Environmental hazards and the Richmond LaotianAmerican Community: A case study in environmental justice. Asian Law Journal 6 189 207. Tanumihardjo, S. A., Anderson, C., Kaufer Horwitz, M., Bode, L., Emenaker, N. J., Haqq, A. M., Stadle r, D. D. (2007). Poverty, obesity, and malnutrition: an international perspective recognizing the paradox. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 107 (11), 19661972. Taquino, M., Parisi, D., & Gill, D. A. (2002). Units of analysis and the environmental justice hypothesis: the case of industrial hog farms. Social Science Quarterly 83(1), 298316. Taylor, D. E. (1997). Women of color, environmental justice, and ecofeminism. In K. Warren & N. Erkal (Eds.), Ecofeminism: Women, C ulture, N ature (pp. 3881) Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Taylor, D. E. (2000). The rise of the environmental justice paradigm injustice framing and the social construction of environmental discourses. American B ehavioral S cientist, 43(4), 508 580. Taylor, W. C., Poston, W. S. C., Jones, L., & Kraft, M. K. (2006). Environmental justice: obesity, physical activity, and healthy eating. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 3 S30 S54. Thomas, D. S. G., & Twyman, C. (2005). Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural resourcedependent societies. Global Climate Change, 15 115124. Thompson, H., Petticrew, M., & Morrison, D. (2001). Health e ffects of housing improvement: Sy stematic review of intervention s tudies. British Medical Journal 323, 187 190. Tiefenbacher, J., & Hagelman, R. (1999). Environmental equity in urban Texas: Race,income, and patterns of acute and chronic toxic air releases in metropolitan counties. Urban Geography 20(6), 516 530. Tobler W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic geography, 46, 234 240. Toler, S., Briggeman, B. C., Lusk, J. L., & Adams, D. C. (2009). Fairness, farmers markets, and local production. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(5), 12721278. 197

PAGE 198

Townsend, M. S., Peerson, J., Love, B., Achterberg, C., & Murphy, S. P. (2001). Food insecurity is positively related to overweight in women. Journal of Nutrition, 131 1738 1745. Trainor, S. F., Chapin III, F. S ., Huntington, H. P., Natcher, D. C., & Kofinas, G. (2007). Arctic climate impacts: Environmental injustice in Canada and the United States. Local Environment 12 (6), 627643. Troutt, D. D. (2005). After the Storm: Black Intellectuals Explore the Meaning of Hurricane Katrina. New York: The New Press. Tsosie, R. (2007). Indigenous people and environmental justice: The effect of climate change. University of Colorado Law Review 78, 16251677. Turner, A. J. (1909). On lead poisoning in childhood. British Medical Journal 1 895897. United Nations (UNFCCC) (1992). Framework Convention on Climate Change Retrieved from United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Retrieved from http://www.un United States Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 Cen sus Urban Area Facts. Retrieved From United States Census Bureau. (2011). Selected Economic Characteristics [Data file]. Retrieved from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2010). Dietary Guidelines for Americans Washington, DC: USGPO. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2011). Sales of Food at Home by Type of Outlet [Data file]. Retrieved from ood expenditures.aspx#.UbuAOPmgLLw United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2012 a ). Food and Nutrition Services Supplemental Food Nutrition Assistance Program: Program Data. Retrieved from ht tp:// United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2012 b ). USDA MyPlate and Food Pyramid Resources Retrieved from guidance/myplatefoodpyramidresources/usdamyplatefood pyramidresources United States Department of Health and Human Services (USHHS). (2000). Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 198

PAGE 199

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2012). Environmental Justice. Retrieved from United States General Accounting Office (USGAO). (1983). Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. University of California Hastings College of the Law (UC Hastings). (2007). Environmental Justice for All: A Fifty State Survey of Legislation, Policy, and Cases Retrieved from law/docs/plri/EJ2007.pdf Van Derslice, J. (2011). Drinking water infrastructure and environmental disparities: Evidence and methodological considerations. American Journal of Public Health 101(S1), 109 113. Van Duyn, M. A. & Pivonka, E. (2000). Overview of the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption for the dietetics professional: selected literature. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 100 1511 1521. van't Veer, P., Jansen, M. C., Klerk, M., & Kok, F. J. (2000). Fruits and vegetables in the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Public Health Nutrition 3 (1), 103107. Ver Ploeg, M., Mancino, L., & Lin, B. H. (2007). Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs and Obesity 19762002. Arlington, VA: United States Department of Agriculture. Vozoris, N. T., & Tarasuk, V. S. (2003). Household food insufficiency is associated with poorer health. Journal of Nutrition 133 120 126. Walker, G. (2009) Beyond distribution and proximity: Exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice. Antipode 41(4), 614 636. Walker, G., & Bulkeley, H. (2006). Geographies of environmental justice. Geoforum 37(5), 655 659. Walker J. L., Bradley, J. L., an d Humphrey, T. J. (2002). A closer look at environmental justice in Indian country. Seattle Journal of Social Justice, 1 379 401. Walker, R. E., Block, J., & Kawachi, I. (2012). Do residents of food deserts express different food buying preferences compar ed to residents of food oases? A mixedmethods analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 9 (1), 1 13. Walker, R. E., Fryer, C. S., Butler, J., Keane, C. R., Kriska, A., & Burke, J. G. (2011). Factors influencing food buy ing practices in residents of a low income food desert and a low income food oasis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5 (3), 247 267. 199

PAGE 200

Walker, R. E., Keane, C. R., & Burke, J. G. (2010). Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Health & Place 16(5), 876884. Wekerle, G. R. (2004). Food justice movements: Planning, policy, networks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23 378386. Wells, H. F., & Buzby, J. A. (2008). Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in U.S. Food Consumption, 19702005. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service. Whitaker, R. C., Phillips, S. M., & Orzol, S. M. (2006). Food insecurity and the risks of depression and anxiety in mothers and beha vior problems in their preschool aged children. Pediatrics 118 e859e868. Wilde, P. E., McNamara, P. E., & Ranney, C. K. (2002). The Effect on Dietary Quality of Participation in the Food Stamp and WIC Programs Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service. Williams, D. R., & Collins, C. (2001). Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public health reports, 116(5) 404. Wilkerson, W. F. (1991). To feel the Summer in the Spring: The treaty fishing rights of the Wisconsin Chippewa. Wisconsin Law Review 375 414. Wilson J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: the police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly March 29 38. Wilson, S., Hutson, M., & Mujahid M. (2008). How planning and zoning contribute to inequitable development, neighborhood health, and environmental injustice. Environmental Justice, 1 (4), 211 216. Winston, A. (2011). Farm to School. Maine Policy Review 20(1), 233236. Wolch, J., Wilson, J. P., & Fehrenbach, J. (2005). Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: An equity mapping analysis. Urban Geography 26(1), 4 35. Wood, M. C. (1994). Indian land and the promise of Native sovereignty: the trust doctrine revisited. Utah Law Rev 3 14711551. Wood, N. L. (2010). Community colleges: A vital resource for education in the post carbon era. R. Heinberg & D. Lerch (Eds.), Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st Centurys Sustainability Crises (pp. 419426). Healdsberg, CA: Watershed Media: New Society Publishers. World Health Organization (WHO) (2003). Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation on Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization. 200

PAGE 201

Wright, B. (1997). New Orleans neighborhoods under siege In R. D Bullard & G. S. Johnson (Eds.) Just transportation: Dismantling Race and Class Barriers to Mobility (pp. 121 144). Gabriola Island, British Columbia: Island Press. Wrigley, N., Warm, D., & Margetts, B. (2003). Deprivation, diet, and foodretail access: findings from the Leeds food deserts study. Environment and Planning A 35(1), 151188. Yaniv, G., Rosin, O., & Tobol, Y. (2009). Junk food, home cooking, physical activity and obesity: The effect of the fat tax and the thin subsidy. Journal of Public Econ omics 93(5), 823 830. Young, C., Karpyn, A., Uy, N., Wich, K., & Glyn, J. (2011). Farmers' markets in low income communities: Impact of community environment, food programs and public policy. Community Development, 42 (2), 208 220. Zachary, D. A., Palmer, A. M., Beckham, S. W., & Surkan, P. J. (2013). A framework for understanding grocery purchasing in a low income urban environment. Qualitative Health Research, 23(5) 665678. Zaferatos N. C. (1998). Planning the Native American tribal community: understanding the basis of power controlling the reservation territory. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64, 395410. Zagorsky, J. L. & Smith, P. K. (2009). Does the U.S. Food Stamp Program contribute to adult weight gain? Econom ics and Human Biology 7 246258. Zenk, S. N., Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., James, S. A., Bao, S., & Wilson, M. L. (2005). Neighborhood racial composition, neighborhood poverty, and the spatial accessibility of supermarkets in Metropolitan Detroit. Ameri can Journal of Public Health 95(4), 660667. Zenk, S. N., Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., James, S. A., Bao, S., & Wilson, M. L. (2006). Fruit and vegetable access differs by community racial composition and socioeconomic position in Detroit, Michigan. Ethn icity & Disease 16 (1), 275 280. Zupan, J. M. (1973). The Distribution of Air Quality in the New York Region. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 201

PAGE 202

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tom Reynolds, Jr. received his J.D. and Ph.D. from the University of Florida in the summer of 2013. His research interests are in the area of environmental law and policy particularly environmental and ecological justice, public land management, and regulatory regimes. Tom also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in finance and a Master of Arts degree in International Business. He worked in real estate finance before returning for another round of graduate school. Tom has served as a graduate teaching assistant and as president of the School of Natural Resources and the Environment College Council. In his spare time, Tom enjoys travelling, fishing, hiking, gardening, brewing beer, and spending time with his partner, Sara, and their rescue dog, Daisy. 202