Environmental Justice: Examining Impacts and Solutions Essay
VerifiedAdded on 2021/10/19
|7
|2430
|317
Essay
AI Summary
This essay delves into the multifaceted concept of environmental justice, emphasizing the disproportionate burden of environmental hazards and degradation on low-income and marginalized communities. It explores the definition of environmental justice, examining who are the recipients, what is being distributed (benefits vs. burdens), and the principles of sharing (equality, distribution, and assured standards). The essay highlights the procedural and substantive aspects of environmental justice, discussing the importance of community involvement in decision-making and the need for equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. It also addresses the impacts of climate change, the role of adaptation, and the intersection of environmental justice with issues such as fossil fuel extraction, human rights, and multispecies ethics. The essay references various studies and perspectives, including those from Australia and international contexts, to illustrate the complexities and challenges in achieving environmental justice, and it references sources like Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) and other scholarly articles.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Environmental justice1
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Name:
Department:
Course:
Date:
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Name:
Department:
Course:
Date:
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Environmental justice 2
Environmental justice
Guarding an environment is occasionally regarded as a treat, somewhat individuals care about
merely when they have sufficient time-out and disposable revenue. In practice, low-income societies and
marginal ethnic classes frequently abide the direct costs of environmental pollution and degradation
(Robbins, Hintz and Moore 2014). If somebody cares about environmental justice, then, determining how
ecology influences the society should be of essence. In particular, individual should have a say in
environmental choices and that ecological paybacks such as green spaces or clean air, and environmental
burdens such as the cost of alleviating climate variation and pollution are equitably spread (Bakker 2010).
Discussion of ecological justice frequently differentiates procedural conservational justice from
substantive or distributive justice (Martin, McGuire and Sullivan 2013). The procedural ecological justice
is normally assumed to have a meaningful involvement in an environmental decision making. The
distributive or substantive environmental justice is typically understood to require those ecological profits
and burdens fairly spread. Thus, it is expected to be harder to execute biased environmental problems on
individuals over a just process that is through an unfair process. In this paper, it is centred on
environmental justice: the recognition that low-income and marginal society frequently suffers an uneven
portion of an ecological cost (Davoudi and Brooks 2014).
In the discussion of different accounts of distributive environmental justice, one should ask, who
are recipients of environmental justice? The questions have a few probable reactions extending from only
present populaces of a distinct state to all present and future generation of a living being. The range of the
communal for environmental justice will decide whether the concept of ecological fairness is
intergenerational or just intergenerational, anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric, and international or
simply domestic (Viel, Hägi, Upegui and Laurian 2011). The second question is what is being spread.
Traditionally, ecological justice drive has focused on environmental toxic, perils, or contamination. Then,
if the environmental justice is about the spreading of benefit of goods such as cash and possessions, then
environmental justice has habitually been about the sharing of bad or burdens (Graham et al. 2017).
Supporters of ecological justice have contended that the scattering of problems is not reasonable. For
instance, the public class of especially low-income group and racial minorities are more likely to be
unprotected to environmental dangers. In Australia, there is a much extensive account of study that
displays a connection between the pollution and the low-income group. On the international scale,
numerous of the burden linked with climate variation such as desertification, inundating and great floods
is expected to be felt most harshly by underprivileged individuals (Martin, McGuire and Sullivan 2013).
Environmental justice
Guarding an environment is occasionally regarded as a treat, somewhat individuals care about
merely when they have sufficient time-out and disposable revenue. In practice, low-income societies and
marginal ethnic classes frequently abide the direct costs of environmental pollution and degradation
(Robbins, Hintz and Moore 2014). If somebody cares about environmental justice, then, determining how
ecology influences the society should be of essence. In particular, individual should have a say in
environmental choices and that ecological paybacks such as green spaces or clean air, and environmental
burdens such as the cost of alleviating climate variation and pollution are equitably spread (Bakker 2010).
Discussion of ecological justice frequently differentiates procedural conservational justice from
substantive or distributive justice (Martin, McGuire and Sullivan 2013). The procedural ecological justice
is normally assumed to have a meaningful involvement in an environmental decision making. The
distributive or substantive environmental justice is typically understood to require those ecological profits
and burdens fairly spread. Thus, it is expected to be harder to execute biased environmental problems on
individuals over a just process that is through an unfair process. In this paper, it is centred on
environmental justice: the recognition that low-income and marginal society frequently suffers an uneven
portion of an ecological cost (Davoudi and Brooks 2014).
In the discussion of different accounts of distributive environmental justice, one should ask, who
are recipients of environmental justice? The questions have a few probable reactions extending from only
present populaces of a distinct state to all present and future generation of a living being. The range of the
communal for environmental justice will decide whether the concept of ecological fairness is
intergenerational or just intergenerational, anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric, and international or
simply domestic (Viel, Hägi, Upegui and Laurian 2011). The second question is what is being spread.
Traditionally, ecological justice drive has focused on environmental toxic, perils, or contamination. Then,
if the environmental justice is about the spreading of benefit of goods such as cash and possessions, then
environmental justice has habitually been about the sharing of bad or burdens (Graham et al. 2017).
Supporters of ecological justice have contended that the scattering of problems is not reasonable. For
instance, the public class of especially low-income group and racial minorities are more likely to be
unprotected to environmental dangers. In Australia, there is a much extensive account of study that
displays a connection between the pollution and the low-income group. On the international scale,
numerous of the burden linked with climate variation such as desertification, inundating and great floods
is expected to be felt most harshly by underprivileged individuals (Martin, McGuire and Sullivan 2013).
Environmental justice 3
Most lately, the notion of ecological justice has been prolonged beyond problems to encompass
paybacks. This means that the benefits are part of the ecological justice debate. For instance, air
contamination is merely a load because clear air is crucial (Walker 2010). But, the novel concentration on
paybacks is rather diverse. The emphasize is not on goods that are weakened by environmental threats
but rather on a more overall notion of environmental worth and being capable to encounter quality
surroundings such as green space or the landscape (Bakker 2010).
The third query that any idea of distributive justice need respond is what the principle of sharing
is. In practice, backers of an ecological justice have engaged three philosophies of spreading: equality,
distribution and equality plus assured standards. The initial conceptions of ecological justice stressed an
uneven distribution of contamination (Davoudi and Brooks 2014). The criticism was that low revenue and
marginal people suffered an unequal burden from this kind of health danger. The problem of ecological
hazard should be equally distributed. In the period, an idea of an equal prospect to be contaminated was
substituted by the notion that no one ought to writhe from the hostile effect of environmental threats.
More accurately, the obligation to an equal sharing of contamination was enhanced by a description that
the pollution level should be minimised to zero (WALKER 2012). Similarly, it is important to ensure that
no one suffers contact to environmental risks.
Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) has a strong track record of advocacy, research, and
litigation, undertaken on behalf of a communal-centred organisation to attempt to accomplish
environmental justice (Haluza-DeLay 2013). More recently, the EJA has commenced advancing a more
embedded model in which lawyers collaborate with a community group for systematic legal advocacy.
The current position of local communities in the decision making for only limited engagement, with
access to environmental justice being hugely procedural rather substantive is highly significant (Graham
et al. 2017).
Vulnerability to climate change is socially determined and differentiated by a scope of political,
economic and environmental aspects, and frequently experienced at local-scale. But, response to climate
change is planned at regional or national levels, with rare representation or equivalence from the local
realm of governance. State intervention to address vulnerability is often crafted over who is identified as
vulnerable and who identifies the vulnerable. However, this may not correspond to regional or national
climate policies or address the pertinent need for participation. Adaptation has the potential to address the
issue of climate change, with the prospect to disrupt an unequal burden of those affected by climate
change. But, adaptation can also be a motivator for further injustice to occur. Looking forward to the
Most lately, the notion of ecological justice has been prolonged beyond problems to encompass
paybacks. This means that the benefits are part of the ecological justice debate. For instance, air
contamination is merely a load because clear air is crucial (Walker 2010). But, the novel concentration on
paybacks is rather diverse. The emphasize is not on goods that are weakened by environmental threats
but rather on a more overall notion of environmental worth and being capable to encounter quality
surroundings such as green space or the landscape (Bakker 2010).
The third query that any idea of distributive justice need respond is what the principle of sharing
is. In practice, backers of an ecological justice have engaged three philosophies of spreading: equality,
distribution and equality plus assured standards. The initial conceptions of ecological justice stressed an
uneven distribution of contamination (Davoudi and Brooks 2014). The criticism was that low revenue and
marginal people suffered an unequal burden from this kind of health danger. The problem of ecological
hazard should be equally distributed. In the period, an idea of an equal prospect to be contaminated was
substituted by the notion that no one ought to writhe from the hostile effect of environmental threats.
More accurately, the obligation to an equal sharing of contamination was enhanced by a description that
the pollution level should be minimised to zero (WALKER 2012). Similarly, it is important to ensure that
no one suffers contact to environmental risks.
Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) has a strong track record of advocacy, research, and
litigation, undertaken on behalf of a communal-centred organisation to attempt to accomplish
environmental justice (Haluza-DeLay 2013). More recently, the EJA has commenced advancing a more
embedded model in which lawyers collaborate with a community group for systematic legal advocacy.
The current position of local communities in the decision making for only limited engagement, with
access to environmental justice being hugely procedural rather substantive is highly significant (Graham
et al. 2017).
Vulnerability to climate change is socially determined and differentiated by a scope of political,
economic and environmental aspects, and frequently experienced at local-scale. But, response to climate
change is planned at regional or national levels, with rare representation or equivalence from the local
realm of governance. State intervention to address vulnerability is often crafted over who is identified as
vulnerable and who identifies the vulnerable. However, this may not correspond to regional or national
climate policies or address the pertinent need for participation. Adaptation has the potential to address the
issue of climate change, with the prospect to disrupt an unequal burden of those affected by climate
change. But, adaptation can also be a motivator for further injustice to occur. Looking forward to the
Environmental justice 4
future, adaptation will become more significant and will play an increasingly crucial role in addressing
the issues of climate justice (Graham et al. 2017).
Environmental justice in a multispecies world brings together scientists across various disciplines
to carve out a novel terrain at the underexplored intersection of multispecies researches and political
ecology. These fields share a widespread concern about what kinds of existence are capable to thrive in
the so-called Anthropocene (Martin, McGuire and Sullivan 2013). The workshop will create a
conversation at the intersection of two trajectories to deliberate the following inquiries: how have
entangled histories colonies and capitalist exploitation shaped current configurations among human and
other species? How should people and nonhuman other liver together? How can recognising various
forms of life reframe techno-scientific management? How do racial, class, gender and other politics shape
multispecies experience? How might focusing to multispecies ethics redefine the structures and politics of
environmental justice?
Not only is fossil fuel extraction motivating accelerated global warming; it is also impacting on
the human rights of poor and vulnerable women. Women are bearing the effect of the environmental and
social influences of coal excavating and coal-fired power production (Laurent 2011). From land grabs to
water pollution; displaced livelihoods to poor health and unaffordable services to gender-based
violence’s. Migration had been a nineteenth and twentieth-century response to environmental hazards
and population pressures when atoll livelihoods were previously at risk.
Numerous current environmental theories, particularly eco-humanities, concentrate on the place
as a locus of identity, continuity and ecological consciousness. The very concept of a singular home
place is problematized by the dissociation and dematerialization that permeate the international culture
and economy (Anand 2017). This culture generates a split between an elevated, singular and conscious
dwelling place. Apparently, place-sensitive spots like bioregionalism avoid rather than decide the
concerns of the splitting by concentrating wholly on particular self-sufficient societies, therefore,
replacing a basic notion of atomic dwellings for recognition of the multifaceted and multiple networks of
places that back the lives. Community ought to be imagined towards others, specifically downstream
communities, rather than self-sufficient and singular (Temper, Del Bene and Martinez-Alier 2015). An
ecological re-conception of dwelling has to comprise a justice perspective and be capable to recognise the
shadow places, not just the one they love, finds, and admire (Martin, McGuire and Sullivan 2013). So, an
ecological thought has to be much more than a literary ecstasy about nice places or about nice time in nice
places. And it must importantly, as a critical ecological stand, be capable to deliberate on how nice places
future, adaptation will become more significant and will play an increasingly crucial role in addressing
the issues of climate justice (Graham et al. 2017).
Environmental justice in a multispecies world brings together scientists across various disciplines
to carve out a novel terrain at the underexplored intersection of multispecies researches and political
ecology. These fields share a widespread concern about what kinds of existence are capable to thrive in
the so-called Anthropocene (Martin, McGuire and Sullivan 2013). The workshop will create a
conversation at the intersection of two trajectories to deliberate the following inquiries: how have
entangled histories colonies and capitalist exploitation shaped current configurations among human and
other species? How should people and nonhuman other liver together? How can recognising various
forms of life reframe techno-scientific management? How do racial, class, gender and other politics shape
multispecies experience? How might focusing to multispecies ethics redefine the structures and politics of
environmental justice?
Not only is fossil fuel extraction motivating accelerated global warming; it is also impacting on
the human rights of poor and vulnerable women. Women are bearing the effect of the environmental and
social influences of coal excavating and coal-fired power production (Laurent 2011). From land grabs to
water pollution; displaced livelihoods to poor health and unaffordable services to gender-based
violence’s. Migration had been a nineteenth and twentieth-century response to environmental hazards
and population pressures when atoll livelihoods were previously at risk.
Numerous current environmental theories, particularly eco-humanities, concentrate on the place
as a locus of identity, continuity and ecological consciousness. The very concept of a singular home
place is problematized by the dissociation and dematerialization that permeate the international culture
and economy (Anand 2017). This culture generates a split between an elevated, singular and conscious
dwelling place. Apparently, place-sensitive spots like bioregionalism avoid rather than decide the
concerns of the splitting by concentrating wholly on particular self-sufficient societies, therefore,
replacing a basic notion of atomic dwellings for recognition of the multifaceted and multiple networks of
places that back the lives. Community ought to be imagined towards others, specifically downstream
communities, rather than self-sufficient and singular (Temper, Del Bene and Martinez-Alier 2015). An
ecological re-conception of dwelling has to comprise a justice perspective and be capable to recognise the
shadow places, not just the one they love, finds, and admire (Martin, McGuire and Sullivan 2013). So, an
ecological thought has to be much more than a literary ecstasy about nice places or about nice time in nice
places. And it must importantly, as a critical ecological stand, be capable to deliberate on how nice places
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Environmental justice 5
and shadow placed are interconnected, particularly where the north places are nice precisely because
south places are not so nice.
There are two probable answers to ecological justice concerns; more equitably, spread out
contamination, or minimise the entire burden of toxic waste. In broad terms, a communal group working
for ecological fairness points that objective is the latter. In diverse cases, in fact, the sets functioning for
environmental fairness have accomplished wider objectives. Therefore, environmental value, income
intensities and access to health attention can impact an individual’s fitness. Individuals with scarce access
to health attention and low incomes are frequently disproportionately uncovered to environmental
pollution that intimidates their wellbeing (Martin, McGuire and Sullivan 2013).
Just like the underprivileged community frequently bears a disproportionate burden of
environmental degradation and pollution matched with rich communities within the same nations, the less
developed state may endure an uneven load from lethal waste that is transferred from the richer states
(Davoudi and Brooks 2014). Additionally, underprivileged nations may tolerate the unbalanced problem
from global warming as a result of fossil fuel application, which is traditionally has been focused in
industrialized nations, yet the dire impacts of global warming may be focused unreasonably in specific
emerging states.
and shadow placed are interconnected, particularly where the north places are nice precisely because
south places are not so nice.
There are two probable answers to ecological justice concerns; more equitably, spread out
contamination, or minimise the entire burden of toxic waste. In broad terms, a communal group working
for ecological fairness points that objective is the latter. In diverse cases, in fact, the sets functioning for
environmental fairness have accomplished wider objectives. Therefore, environmental value, income
intensities and access to health attention can impact an individual’s fitness. Individuals with scarce access
to health attention and low incomes are frequently disproportionately uncovered to environmental
pollution that intimidates their wellbeing (Martin, McGuire and Sullivan 2013).
Just like the underprivileged community frequently bears a disproportionate burden of
environmental degradation and pollution matched with rich communities within the same nations, the less
developed state may endure an uneven load from lethal waste that is transferred from the richer states
(Davoudi and Brooks 2014). Additionally, underprivileged nations may tolerate the unbalanced problem
from global warming as a result of fossil fuel application, which is traditionally has been focused in
industrialized nations, yet the dire impacts of global warming may be focused unreasonably in specific
emerging states.
Environmental justice 6
References
Anand, R., 2017. International environmental justice: A North-South dimension. Routledge. [Online].
Retrieved from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351926874, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Bakker, K., 2010. The limits of ‘neoliberal natures’: Debating green neoliberalism. Progress in Human
Geography, 34(6), pp.715-735. [Online]. Retrieved from:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132510376849, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Davoudi, S. and Brooks, E., 2014. When does unequal become unfair? Judging claims of environmental
injustice. Environment and Planning A, 46(11), pp.2686-2702. [Online]. Retrieved from:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/a130346p, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Graham, S., Lukasiewicz, A., Dovers, S., Robin, L., McKay, J. and Schilizzi, S. eds., 2017. Natural
resources and environmental justice: Australian perspectives. CSIRO PUBLISHING. [Online]. Retrieved
from:https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=ruRrDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=environmental+justice+australia&ots=HFSXMP
Nf4r&sig=ak_0fsWN8_tbMIcKGZkbjLh-6mI, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Haluza-DeLay, R., 2013. Educating for environmental justice. International handbook of research on
environmental education, pp.394-403. [Online]. Retrieved from:https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=cg4ZKQXOsXIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA394&dq=Environmental+justice+requires+that+indivi
duals+have+equitable+access+to+environmental+%E2%80%98goods
%E2%80%99+and+are+not+unfairly+burdened+with+environmental+%E2%80%98bads
%E2%80%99.+&ots=kzcDjUtP3I&sig=KeJz-rjguGfXI2kiUtRWDV-6xXY, [Accessed on 6 November
2018].
Laurent, E., 2011. Issues in environmental justice within the European Union. Ecological
Economics, 70(11), pp.1846-1853.Elsevier, [Online]. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.025, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Martin, A., McGuire, S. and Sullivan, S., 2013. Global environmental justice and biodiversity
conservation. The Geographical Journal, 179(2), pp.122-131. [Online]. Retrieved
from:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/geoj.12018, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Robbins, P., Hintz, J. and Moore, S.A., 2014. Environment and society: a critical introduction. John
Wiley & Sons. [Online]. Retrieved from:https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=MQQLAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Environmental+justice+requires+that+indivi
References
Anand, R., 2017. International environmental justice: A North-South dimension. Routledge. [Online].
Retrieved from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351926874, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Bakker, K., 2010. The limits of ‘neoliberal natures’: Debating green neoliberalism. Progress in Human
Geography, 34(6), pp.715-735. [Online]. Retrieved from:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132510376849, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Davoudi, S. and Brooks, E., 2014. When does unequal become unfair? Judging claims of environmental
injustice. Environment and Planning A, 46(11), pp.2686-2702. [Online]. Retrieved from:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/a130346p, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Graham, S., Lukasiewicz, A., Dovers, S., Robin, L., McKay, J. and Schilizzi, S. eds., 2017. Natural
resources and environmental justice: Australian perspectives. CSIRO PUBLISHING. [Online]. Retrieved
from:https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=ruRrDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=environmental+justice+australia&ots=HFSXMP
Nf4r&sig=ak_0fsWN8_tbMIcKGZkbjLh-6mI, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Haluza-DeLay, R., 2013. Educating for environmental justice. International handbook of research on
environmental education, pp.394-403. [Online]. Retrieved from:https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=cg4ZKQXOsXIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA394&dq=Environmental+justice+requires+that+indivi
duals+have+equitable+access+to+environmental+%E2%80%98goods
%E2%80%99+and+are+not+unfairly+burdened+with+environmental+%E2%80%98bads
%E2%80%99.+&ots=kzcDjUtP3I&sig=KeJz-rjguGfXI2kiUtRWDV-6xXY, [Accessed on 6 November
2018].
Laurent, E., 2011. Issues in environmental justice within the European Union. Ecological
Economics, 70(11), pp.1846-1853.Elsevier, [Online]. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.025, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Martin, A., McGuire, S. and Sullivan, S., 2013. Global environmental justice and biodiversity
conservation. The Geographical Journal, 179(2), pp.122-131. [Online]. Retrieved
from:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/geoj.12018, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Robbins, P., Hintz, J. and Moore, S.A., 2014. Environment and society: a critical introduction. John
Wiley & Sons. [Online]. Retrieved from:https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=MQQLAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Environmental+justice+requires+that+indivi
Environmental justice 7
duals+have+equitable+access+to+environmental+%E2%80%98goods
%E2%80%99+and+are+not+unfairly+burdened+with+environmental+%E2%80%98bads
%E2%80%99.+&ots=kt6TpAF7n_&sig=mXVBgDuypBgYjGYVkTYyGu9uB3o, [Accessed on 6
November 2018].
Temper, L., Del Bene, D. and Martinez-Alier, J., 2015. Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global
environmental justice: the EJAtlas. Journal of Political Ecology, 22(1), pp.255-278. [Online]. Retrieved
from:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniela_Del_Bene2/publication/
283083930_Mapping_the_frontiers_and_front_lines_of_global_environmental_justice_The_EJAtlas/
links/5972206c458515e26dfac269/Mapping-the-frontiers-and-front-lines-of-global-environmental-
justice-The-EJAtlas.pdf, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Viel, J.F., Hägi, M., Upegui, E. and Laurian, L., 2011. Environmental justice in a French industrial
region: Are polluting industrial facilities equally distributed?. Health & place, 17(1), pp.257-262.
[Online]. Retrieved from:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829210001589,
[Accessed on 6 November 2018].
WALKER, G. (2012). Environmental justice concepts, evidence and politics. London, New York,
Routledge. [Online]. Retrieved from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136619243, [Accessed
on 6 November 2018].
Walker, G., 2010. Environmental justice, impact assessment and the politics of knowledge: The
implications of assessing the social distribution of environmental outcomes. Environmental impact
assessment review, Elsevier, 30(5), pp.312-318. [Online]. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.005, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
duals+have+equitable+access+to+environmental+%E2%80%98goods
%E2%80%99+and+are+not+unfairly+burdened+with+environmental+%E2%80%98bads
%E2%80%99.+&ots=kt6TpAF7n_&sig=mXVBgDuypBgYjGYVkTYyGu9uB3o, [Accessed on 6
November 2018].
Temper, L., Del Bene, D. and Martinez-Alier, J., 2015. Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global
environmental justice: the EJAtlas. Journal of Political Ecology, 22(1), pp.255-278. [Online]. Retrieved
from:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniela_Del_Bene2/publication/
283083930_Mapping_the_frontiers_and_front_lines_of_global_environmental_justice_The_EJAtlas/
links/5972206c458515e26dfac269/Mapping-the-frontiers-and-front-lines-of-global-environmental-
justice-The-EJAtlas.pdf, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
Viel, J.F., Hägi, M., Upegui, E. and Laurian, L., 2011. Environmental justice in a French industrial
region: Are polluting industrial facilities equally distributed?. Health & place, 17(1), pp.257-262.
[Online]. Retrieved from:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829210001589,
[Accessed on 6 November 2018].
WALKER, G. (2012). Environmental justice concepts, evidence and politics. London, New York,
Routledge. [Online]. Retrieved from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136619243, [Accessed
on 6 November 2018].
Walker, G., 2010. Environmental justice, impact assessment and the politics of knowledge: The
implications of assessing the social distribution of environmental outcomes. Environmental impact
assessment review, Elsevier, 30(5), pp.312-318. [Online]. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.005, [Accessed on 6 November 2018].
1 out of 7
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
Unlock your academic potential
© 2024 | Zucol Services PVT LTD | All rights reserved.