| Chapter 1: | Spatial and Environmental Justice in the Metropolis |
|
|
disproportionate environmental risks and burdens were extended to include the outcomes of unintended environmental externalities generated by specific productions of space and land-use decisions, constrained by the fiscal exigencies of municipal governance, the neoliberal politics of place, and the imperatives of global place competition.
As a progressive idea, environmental justice implies that equity should be an implicit part of public policy as it relates to the sociospatial distribution and zoning of public amenities and disamenities. It also implies that deprived, vulnerable, and excluded individuals and marginalized communities have basic rights to the benefits of the urban built environment and a right to a fair share of its associated natural resources, as well as the corollary right not to suffer disproportionately from the social and economic policies and programs associated with urban living. In other words, as an indivisible element of their rights to the city (Lefebvre, 1996), the poor and marginalized are entitled to environmental information, participation, decision making, and redress. While this conception of environmental justice is more expansive, it remains consistent with the current federal definition which refers to “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 environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2008).
The concept of spatial justice, which has always been an implicit, integral part of environmental justice, is enjoying a comeback of sorts since its heydays in the 1960s and 1970s (Davis, 1968; Pirie, 1983; Purcell, 2002; Rynaud, 1981). This concept, which is part and parcel of the “socio-spatial turn” (Soja, 1985) in the social sciences, underscores the idea that environmental risks and burdens neither occur in a political