TY - JOUR
T1 - Navigating justice
T2 - Examining the intersection of procedural and distributive justice in environmental impact assessment in Puerto Rico
AU - Pérez Figueroa, Omar
AU - Ulibarri, Nicola
N1 - The authors thank Amanda Cravens, Rebecca Nelson, and AR Siders for feedback on many drafts of this paper. This research was supported by the UC Water Security and Sustainability Research Initiative funded by the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) (Grant no. MR-15-328473 ).
However, as the feasibility study and EIS were required to adhere to federal standards, around 2013, the USACE issued a letter halting the feasibility report and plans for channel dredging. The Corps argued that the dredging material was considered Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste, which would prohibit the Corps from authorizing the project. This event resulted in community members mobilizing to publicly denounce that USACE was halting the project, and ENLACE traveled to Washington, D.C. to lobby USACE. With the support from the EPA, politicians from different party lines, and the private sector, ENLACE was able to sign an agreement to continue the project with USACE in 2019. The agreement included partial funds for project startup and the necessary funds to cover temporary staging and the management site for dredged material.
PY - 2024/11
Y1 - 2024/11
N2 - Recognizing that centuries of mistreatment of low-income and minority communities by governments and corporations have resulted in widespread exposure to environmental harms, academics and policymakers are seeking ways to improve environmental justice. While it is commonly assumed that improved procedural justice (meaningful participation in decision making) should improve distributive justice (equitable distribution of environmental harms and benefits), empirical evidence of this link is nascent. This paper evaluates whether differing approaches to procedural justice shape recognition of distributive injustices by policymakers, focusing on implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in Puerto Rico. NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of projects they implement, fund, or permit; this review commonly includes an assessment of the project's impacts on distributive justice. Drawing on document analysis and interviews with project developers, regulators, and community organizations, we explore how and why four NEPA reviews consider distributional impacts. In all four cases, the community mobilized to voice concerns about the proposed projects' impacts, but the lead agencies and project developers did not always create the space for those voices to collaboratively shape the review. This demonstrates the role of the project developer in how distributive justice considerations are treated, as project leads have discretion on whether and when to provide space for community groups to participate in the process. This research makes two primary contributions. First, by linking features of the decision-making process with environmental justice-related outputs, this research provides practical understanding of ways to support distributive justice and expands knowledge about how participatory governance works within the context of US environmental policy. Second, by studying NEPA's implementation in Puerto Rico, we assess challenges associated with implementing Environmental Impact Assessment in a territorial setting, where the demographics and intensity of environmental problems are distinct from the 'traditional' American context the policies were designed to protect.
AB - Recognizing that centuries of mistreatment of low-income and minority communities by governments and corporations have resulted in widespread exposure to environmental harms, academics and policymakers are seeking ways to improve environmental justice. While it is commonly assumed that improved procedural justice (meaningful participation in decision making) should improve distributive justice (equitable distribution of environmental harms and benefits), empirical evidence of this link is nascent. This paper evaluates whether differing approaches to procedural justice shape recognition of distributive injustices by policymakers, focusing on implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in Puerto Rico. NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of projects they implement, fund, or permit; this review commonly includes an assessment of the project's impacts on distributive justice. Drawing on document analysis and interviews with project developers, regulators, and community organizations, we explore how and why four NEPA reviews consider distributional impacts. In all four cases, the community mobilized to voice concerns about the proposed projects' impacts, but the lead agencies and project developers did not always create the space for those voices to collaboratively shape the review. This demonstrates the role of the project developer in how distributive justice considerations are treated, as project leads have discretion on whether and when to provide space for community groups to participate in the process. This research makes two primary contributions. First, by linking features of the decision-making process with environmental justice-related outputs, this research provides practical understanding of ways to support distributive justice and expands knowledge about how participatory governance works within the context of US environmental policy. Second, by studying NEPA's implementation in Puerto Rico, we assess challenges associated with implementing Environmental Impact Assessment in a territorial setting, where the demographics and intensity of environmental problems are distinct from the 'traditional' American context the policies were designed to protect.
KW - Distributive justice
KW - Environmental impact assessment
KW - Environmental justice
KW - National Environmental Policy Act
KW - Procedural justice
KW - Puerto Rico
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85202513472
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85202513472&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107648
DO - 10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107648
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85202513472
SN - 0195-9255
VL - 109
JO - Environmental Impact Assessment Review
JF - Environmental Impact Assessment Review
M1 - 107648
ER -