UU Campus Gotland

Nadia Klepsvik
6th October 2021

Home Exam

1. Introduction
In our shift to a more sustainable future, justice and equity must become the centre point of
sustainability discussions, since “just sustainability implies a paradigm shift that in turn
requires that sustainability takes on a redistributive function” (Menton et al., 2020). The
two are interconnected because environmental problems are fundamentally problems of
justice. As we have discussed during the course, there are many descriptions and
explanations of what constitutes environmental justice. In this paper, environmental justice
will be defined as fair distribution and meaningful involvement regarding environmental
benefits and burdens (Walker, 2012). The environmental justice movement began in the
1960s, gaining traction in the 1980s, over inequitable waste distribution (Menton et al.,
2020), and continues to address a larger range of problems at present, such as air quality,
climate justice, and urban greenspaces. The movement fights against opportunity
inequality because the problem is not that only a handful gain benefits of being rich, but
that the poor are stuck in poverty, reducing their mobility, limiting their outcomes in life,
and deepening their environmental injustices.

2. Inequitable waste distribution

As mentioned above, dating back to the 1980s, there was already attention being brought to
the environmental injustices in the geographical pattern of hazardous waste sites. While
everyone to a degree is involved in producing waste, some communities end up closer to
these waste flows than others. Like the case in Orchid Island, Taiwan in 1987, where the
Yami people were burdened with nuclear waste from the mainland without receiving any
benefits of the generated electricity (Walkers, 2012). The disrespect given to poor
communities and racially ethnic communities particularly in the US, to host toxic waste
sites due to their lack of education and power screams environmental injustice. When
white middle-class areas who are more environmentally aware and well-resourced have the
power to say, ‘not in my back yard’, waste companies intentionally proceed to poverty-
stricken neighbourhoods where resistance is less likely and/or effective (Walker, 2012).

The public or more specifically the host communities are hardly ever involved in the
decision-making process. There is an absence of community consultation and access to
information (Walker, 2012). And when they do cooperate, it is normally due to their need
for employment and cheap housing that blackmails them into hosting hazardous waste
sites. It takes local resistance and protests from the public before their voices are heard.
Not only do the poor have to endure environmental injustice, but they are also hit with
opportunity inequality. They are more vulnerable to pollution and health risks, increasing
their debt and lessening their chances in life.

Lastly, having more than one role during the planning process may lead to biased opinions.
For example, in the case of Greengair, Scotland in the 1990s, the managing director of the
waste disposal company was also part of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.
With conflicting interests, the public may be less reluctant to trust experts’ integrity with

1
UU Campus Gotland
Nadia Klepsvik
6th October 2021
environmental justice. Especially when safety reassurances are provided by agencies
funded by toxic waste companies which is commonly the case in the US (Walker, 2012).

3. Resolution
When trying to form resolutions for inequitable waste distribution, the first thought is
always to move the waste to a different site. But this does not end the burden of
environmental injustice, it just transfers it to someone else. For example, when both
Taiwan and England were tightening regulations on the acceptable amount of hazardous
waste allowed in landfills, they turned to other countries to take advantage of their weak
regulations and cheap disposal methods (Walker, 2012). The argument here is that
distributing waste to under-polluted areas makes for a fair distribution. But why should
places that produce less waste be burdened with the responsibility of other nation’s wastes?

Moving forward there needs to be a focus on waste prevention and not waste distribution.
Pollution must be controlled effectively and both consumers and investors should be well-
informed about the value of environmental justice. The idea of cheap alternative waste
disposal must be abolished. Instead of dumping waste onto another nation, having proper
communication and compromises between nations is important. Unwanted waste in one
nation may be valuable to another. For example, e-waste, many Asian countries find
electronic waste valuable as it can be recycled or re-used and further generates more jobs
(Walker, 2012). With this, there also needs to be better knowledge on what can be recycled
so as not to contaminate recycled goods. Not everything is recyclable, and regulations
should be set in place to allow accurate and safe disposal of waste and recycled goods.

For a sustainable transition, system planning should be included to help fight the war on
waste. Experts understand the need for effective and time efficient solutions and will
provide them through scientific and objective decisions. Planners will generate and
evaluate alternatives, while also predicting future changes (Allmendinger, 2017),
especially since the world is forever evolving, population is growing and waste and
recovered materials markets are due to change. Planners should allow for sustainable
improvements to waste management practices over time to respond to these changes.

Better and cleaner infrastructure should be built to combat pollution and emissions during
the disposal process. Taking a step further, into neo-liberal theories, planners should
consider generating energy from waste and turning waste management sites into positive
areas that provides green jobs and cheap electricity for the host community. Correct
methods of disposal should also be heavily regulated so that toxic waste is contained and
cannot be leaked, resulting in harmful effects. Developed countries should provide aid to
developing countries, if not financially, then through knowledge. Especially since, they
have been awkwardly burdened with developed countries’ unmanageable waste for too
long now. In system and neo-liberal planning, professionals hold more knowledge and can
therefore produce a plan with the best possible outcome that benefits as many people as
possible (Allmendinger, 2017).

Although system planning uses technical rationality, planners lack creativity and may
promote theories that fit their normative perspectives (Allmendinger, 2017). Thus,
collaborative and advocacy planning are advised to ensure recognition justice, because
everyone involved should have an effective voice in its consideration (Ciplet and Harrison,
2019). The public should be involved in the decision-making process and kept up to date of

2
UU Campus Gotland
Nadia Klepsvik
6th October 2021
the plan’s progress. A well-informed public is more likely to support projects in their
community and may even help with implementations (Allmendinger, 2017). Planners
should be communicative and transparent especially with risks involved. There are many
health risks involved in managing a waste site including, occupational accidents, sickness,
risk of exposure to chemicals and diseases. And those in poorer communities do not have
the luxury to high quality healthcare. Hence, the importance of safe and proper equipment
as well as locating sites at a safe distance to residential areas to minimise risk is essential.
Planners should as a bonus, allocate proper resources and budgeting to healthcare services
and insurances for communities and/or people most at risk.

Lastly, along with involved risks, roles and agendas should also be transparent. This builds
trust and reassures the public that safety and environmental agencies are acting in the
publics best interest (Allmendinger, 2017). With regulations coming from the government
as well as an educated and involved public, this creates a circular economy for waste
management. As mentioned before the focus should be on waste prevention and not
distribution. Especially with our current climate crisis. Thus, the government should
enforce rules to minimise waste in factories and companies, this allows them to introduce
creative incentives for consumers to recycle products. Greater access to proper recycling
will also allow more products to be re-used and given multiple lives. And limiting plastic
production will significantly help with lessening waste production and the environmental
injustice that comes with it: toxic air and water pollution.

4. Conclusion
Waste is continuously being produced, especially with a growing economy and seasonal
trends. Hence, long-term waste prevention plans must continuously keep up with the times
and foreseeable future (Walker, 2012) to protect future generations and other species. To
smoothly transition to just sustainability, governments must look beyond goals of
economic growth as this narrow perspective leads to extensive environmental injustice
(Menton et al., 2020). Power dynamics need to shift and bring more concern for
marginalised groups. However, while complex interactions must be involved within plans
to address injustices linked to development (Menton et al., 2020), these issues are time
sensitive and require fast action from a sustainable perspective (Ciplet and Harrison, 2019).
Hence, approaching waste management projects through different planning theories as
discussed in the paper is vital to solving environmental injustice in a just sustainable
transition.

3
UU Campus Gotland
Nadia Klepsvik
6th October 2021

5. References
Allmendinger, P. (2017). Planning Theory. London: Macmillan Education, Palgrave.

Ciplet, D. and Harrison, J.L. (2019). Transition tensions: mapping conflicts in movements
for a just and sustainable transition. Environmental Politics, 29(3), pp.1–22.

Menton, M., Larrea, C., Latorre, S., Martinez-Alier, J., Peck, M., Temper, L. and Walter,
M. (2020). Environmental justice and the SDGs: from synergies to gaps and
contradictions. Sustainability Science, 15(6), pp.1621–1636.

Walker, G. (2012). Environmental justice : concepts, evidence and politics. London ; New
York: Routledge.