Rural Sociology - 2016 - Greenberg - Disproportionality and Resource Based Environmental Inequality An Analysis of

Rural Sociology 82(1), 2017, pp.
149–178
DOI: 10.1111/ruso.12119
Copyright © 2016, by the Rural Sociological Society
Disproportionality and Resource-Based Environmental

Inequality: An Analysis of Neighborhood Proximity to Coal
Impoundments in Appalachia*
Pierce Greenberg
Department of Sociology
Washington State University
Abstract Environmental hazards created by resource extraction impose

numerous risks on rural populations, but have been understudied in
quantitative analyses of environmental inequality. This study fills that gap by
examining whether neighborhoods with socioeconomic disadvantages are
disproportionately proximate to coal impoundments in Appalachia. Coal
impoundments are large, hazardous dams that hold billions of gallons of
wastewater and slurry, a sludge-like by-product of processing coal. I ground
this study in William Freudenburg’s double diversion framework, which
highlights “disproportionality”—the unequal trade-off between economic
benefits and environmental costs of certain industries. Disproportionality is
evident in Appalachia, where coal mining makes up a small percentage of the
region’s jobs, but threatens local communities through the creation of
environmental hazards. Spatial regression results indicate that
neighborhoods closest to impoundments are slightly more likely to have
higher rates of poverty and unemployment, even after controlling for
rurality, mining-related variables, and spatial dependence. The findings also
suggest that a neighborhood’s proximity to past mining activity is a stronger
predictor of impoundment proximity than current levels of mining
employment. This article lays the groundwork for future research on
resource-based environmental inequality that considers the uneven spatial
distribution of hazards created by resource extraction.
Introduction
Coal impoundments threaten the health of communities throughout
Appalachia, but have received little attention as a source of environ-
mental inequality. These facilities hold billions of gallons of toxic waste
created from coal extraction—and knowledge about their safety is
uncertain. Impoundment failures have caused some of the worst envi-
ronmental and human disasters in the history of the United States. An
impoundment break in 1972 killed 125 people in West Virginia
* I thank Drs. Raoul Li

evanos, Don Dillman, Greg Hooks, Emily Kennedy, Jennifer
Sherman, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of
this article.
15490831, 2017, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ruso.12119 by University Estadual De Campina, Wiley Online Library on [10/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
150 Rural Sociology, Vol. 82, No. 1, March 2017
(Erikson 1976). Another failure in 2000 poisoned waterways in Ken-

tucky with more than 300 million gallons of slurry—an amount 30 times
larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska (McSpirit, Hardesty,
and Welch 2002). An engineering consultant referred to mining dams
and dumps as “among the highest-risk structures on Earth,” following a
recent impoundment failure at a copper mine in Brazil (Kiernan
2016:1). Communities also worry about coal waste from impoundments
seeping into local water sources. But despite the risks associated with
coal impoundments in rural areas, no studies have analyzed whether
they are disproportionately located near disadvantaged populations.
Instead, environmental inequality research focuses primarily on racial
and socioeconomic disparities in urban contexts.
Environmental inequality refers to “any form of environmental haz-
ard that burdens a particular social group” (Pellow 2000:585). Influen-
tial studies in the 1980s illustrated how nonwhite groups were
disproportionately proximate to landfills and toxic waste dumps
(Bullard 1994; UCCCRJ 1987). But much of the research to follow dis-
played an “end of pipe” bias that focused on hazard creation at the end
of the production process in urban settings (Pellow 2000:595). There-
fore, quantitative environmental inequality research largely ignores haz-
ards associated with resource extraction that may unequally impact
disadvantaged rural and resource-dependent communities. According
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 2013), mining
and mineral processing generates more hazardous waste than any other
industry.1 Rural resource-dependent communities also have unique
social dynamics that may make them more vulnerable to extraction-
related risks and disasters (Bell 2009; Flint and Luloff 2005; Malin
2015). Therefore, I propose a line of resource-based environmental
inequality research, which analyzes the unequal spatial distribution of
environmental hazards created at sites of natural resource extraction.
This research extends the rural sociological tradition of examining
markers of spatial stratification (i.e., “who gets what where”) (Lobao
2004:4) and incorporates theory on the creation of environmental deg-
radation and inequality.
This article uses the double diversion framework (Freudenburg
2005) to structure an empirical analysis of resource-based environmen-
tal inequality in Appalachia. The double diversion seeks to explain dis-
proportionality—the unequal trade-off between the economic benefits
1
The EPA does not regulate coal waste impoundments. The Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation, and state-level environmental
protection agencies are responsible for monitoring coal waste impoundments.
Resource-Based Environmental Inequality — Greenberg 151
and environmental costs of resource extraction and production (Freu-

denburg 2005, 2006). According to Freudenburg (2005), unquestioned
narratives (“privileged accounts”) about the economic necessity of envi-
ronmental harm enable corporations’ “privileged access” to natural
resources. This perspective provides relevant theoretical mechanisms
that explain the unequal spatial distribution of coal-related environ-
mental hazards. I use a unique data set of coal impoundment locations
to test whether neighborhoods with socioeconomic disadvantages are
more likely to be closer to coal impoundments in Appalachia. Spatial
regression results find a slight association between socioeconomic dis-
advantage and impoundment proximity, even after controlling for rural
and mining-related variables. Further, the results show that the pres-
ence of past mining activities is a stronger indicator of impoundment
proximity than current levels of mining employment. Overall, this study
reveals important dimensions of environmental inequality that must be
considered in discussions about ensuring a socially and environmental-
ly “just transition” beyond coal mining in Appalachia.
Coal Impoundments in Appalachia

The Appalachian region crosses 13 states from Mississippi to New York
and is contiguous with some of the largest coal reserves in the eastern
United States. Despite the mineral wealth of the region, Appalachia has
been historically mired in economic deprivation and uneven develop-
ment (Eller 2008; Gaventa 1980). The region is sometimes character-
ized as an “internal colony”—which has had its natural resources
exploited by absentee entities in exchange for economic hardships
(Gaventa 1980; Lewis, Johnson, and Askins 1978). While recent studies
have emphasized environmental degradation and health impacts associ-
ated with mountaintop-removal coal mining (Bell and York 2010; Hen-
dryx 2013; Perdue and Pavela 2012), few scholars have analyzed the
characteristics of populations that live closest to mining-related hazards.
Coal impoundments pose several key environmental risks that may
unequally burden certain populations: (1) the possibility of an
impoundment failure and subsequent disaster, (2) potential ongoing
health impacts related to slurry seeping into water sources, and (3) the
psychological dread associated with living near those technological
risks.
Coal slurry—a refuse mixture of water, coal, and rock created from
“washing” coal prior to shipment—became a waste-management issue
in the 1950s and 1960s (NRC 2002). Slurry was originally dumped into
local streams and rivers before “heightened environmental awareness
and public pressure . . . forced coal operators to construct storage

ponds to contain the slurry” (Michalek, Gardner, and Wu 1996:1). At
first, coal impoundments were constructed without government over-
sight and regulation. Despite intermittent impoundment failures in
rural areas, the gravity of the waste-disposal problem was not realized
until tragedy struck (Michalek et al. 1996). On February 26, 1972, a
coal impoundment in West Virginia collapsed and unleashed a wall of
thick slurry down Buffalo Creek. The spill killed 125 people and
destroyed entire communities downstream of the impoundment
(Erickson 1976). Buffalo Creek inspired additional federal regulations,
but impoundment failures still occurred in the following decades. Most
notably, an impoundment break in Martin County, Kentucky, dumped
300 million gallons of slurry into local waterways in 2000 (McSpirit et al.
2002). The National Research Council (NRC 2002) highlighted nine
additional impoundment failures from 1977 to 2000, but acknowledged
that the list is not comprehensive.
Despite government assurances that coal impoundments do not pre-
sent “imminent danger,” doubts about their overall safety remain
(Ward 2012a). An Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforce-
ment report found that “quality control methods used during embank-
ment construction may not be achieving the desired results” (Eilperin
and Mufson 2013). The office’s engineers reported that only 16 of 73
embankment compaction tests at seven high-risk impoundment sites
were in compliance with safety regulations (Eilperin and Mufson 2013).
While impoundment embankments are a concern, most of the major
failures occur due to slurry bursting through the bottom of the
impoundment into abandoned mines (NRC 2002). Some companies
may have constructed impoundments on previously mined and hol-
lowed land due to the scarcity of historical mining maps (NRC 2002).
In addition to the risk of disaster, people living near impoundments
are subject to ongoing concerns over water quality. However, scientific evi-
dence of the leaching of coal slurry into water sources is not definite. A
review of the chemical makeup of coal slurry from underground injection
sites confirmed that the substance contains “significant levels of toxic
chemicals” (Ducatman et al. 2013:62; see also Aken et al. 2014). The
report could not definitively prove that coal slurry was leaching into water
sources due to the complexity of groundwater hydrology (Ducatman
et al. 2013). But several legal challenges have successfully established
groundwater problems stemming from coal slurry impoundments and
the underground injection of coal waste (Plummer 2016; Ward 2012b).
That kind of scientific uncertainty is a staple of technological risk
that can cause dread in nearby communities (Erikson 1994). Surveys
administered in two West Virginia counties found that 58 percent of

respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “people
dread living near the impoundment” (Scott et al. 2012:161). Other
research in the aftermath of the Martin County disaster revealed mixed
attitudes and risk perceptions related to coal impoundments. Survey
research in 2001 and 2005 found that Martin County residents had sig-
nificantly greater levels of risk perception and concern about coal
impoundments than residents of a control county (McSpirit et al.
2007). Further, residents with coal industry connections slightly down-
played the risks of impoundments (McSpirit et al. 2007). A follow-up
study showed that institutional trust levels slightly recovered and con-
cern slightly lessened in the decade after the impoundment break
(Scott et al. 2012). Despite the risks posed by coal impoundments, few
studies have analyzed whether they are disproportionately proximate to
disadvantaged populations across Appalachia.
Literature Review
The unequal spatial distribution of resource-extraction-based hazards has
been understudied, perhaps due to “separate intellectual enterprises”
between natural resource sociology and environmental sociology (Buttel
2002:205). But there are important opportunities for cohesion between
the two fields. For example, Field, Luloff, and Krannich (2002:221) note
that the study of environmental inequality is a fruitful area for conver-
gence between environmental and natural resource sociology due to the
field’s “focus on the well-being of specific populations in specific commu-
nity contexts.” Both literatures combine an interest in socioenvironmen-
tal processes and local, community-level outcomes. This review examines
work that demonstrates cohesion between environmental inequality soci-
ology and natural resource sociology, including the double diversion
framework that guides the empirical analysis below.
Environmental Inequality
A major strand of environmental inequality research focuses on the
unequal distribution of environmental hazards in disadvantaged com-
munities. This line of research proliferated following the emergence of
the environmental justice movement in the 1980s (Szasz and Meuser
1997). Sociology proved to be a practical home for environmental
inequality studies due to its focus on power and inequality—and the
recent maturation of environmental sociology (Pellow and Brehm
2013). This review focuses on empirical studies of “disparate
proximity,” which quantitatively assess whether “members of a specific
social group live closer to some set of hazards than we would expect if
group members were randomly distributed across residential space”
(Downey 2005:355). Disparate proximity studies often analyze the
extent to which race or class characterizes communities near hazards in
urban areas (for reviews see Brulle and Pellow 2006; Mohai, Pellow, and
Roberts 2009; Mohai and Saha 2007, 2015; Pellow and Brehm 2013).
While the quantitative environmental inequality literature often finds
evidence of disparate proximity in urban settings, scholars seldom exam-
ine the spatial distribution of environmental hazards in rural areas.2 How-
ever, there are notable works that illustrate the unequal impact of
environmental hazards in rural and resource-dependent regions. For
example, scholars have examined the environmental and social impacts of
hog waste in rural North Carolina (Driscoll and Edwards 2009; Edwards
and Ladd 2000). Other studies find that both unexploded military
ordnance (Hooks and Smith 2004) and abandoned uranium mines
(Moore-Nall 2015) are disproportionately located near rural Native
American reservations. Locke (2015) finds that potentially hazardous frac
sand mines are more likely to be located in rural counties with fewer
zoning regulations. Recent research in public health and geography also
examines the spatial distribution of hazards related to hydraulic fracturing
(“fracking”) (Clough and Bell 2016; Johnston, Werder, and Sebastian
2016; Ogneva-Himmelberger and Huang 2015). In addition to quantita-
tive work, several important qualitative and legal studies examine how
rural populations are burdened by waste dumps (Bullard 1994), resource
extraction (Bell 2013; Malin 2015; Mutz, Bryner, and Kenney 2002; Scott
2010), and agricultural pesticide drift (Harrison 2011).
This study expands existing quantitative environmental inequality
research into the realm of resource-extraction-based hazards. Instead of
analyzing toxic emissions or other “end of pipe” hazards, this article
focuses on a unique set of hazards created at the site of resource extrac-
tion. Government agencies, both in the United States and globally, have
expressed concerns about the mounting dangers of mine waste (ICOLD
2001; Kiernan 2016; NRC 2002; U.S. EPA 2013). Flint and Luloff (2005)
also acknowledge that resource-dependent communities may be more
vulnerable to environmental disasters. Therefore, I conceive of a
resource-based environmental inequality study that incorporates empir-
ical and theoretical evidence from rural, resource, and environmental
sociology to study the distribution of resource-extraction-related
2
One early study even excluded rural areas from a national-level analysis, claiming that
rural regions weren’t viable alternatives for large waste facilities (Anderson et al. 1994;
Anderton et al. 1994).
hazards. This line of research is especially important in regions like

Appalachia where environmental hazards created by a declining coal
industry threaten prospects for economic development in the region
(Lobao et al. forthcoming; Todd, Doshi, and McInnis 2010).
Disproportionality and the Double Diversion Framework

While environmental inequality scholars have been critical to docu-
menting the uneven distribution of environmental harms, Freuden-
burg’s (2005) double diversion framework focuses on how the creation
of those hazards is also socially structured. His perspective pinpoints
institutional mechanisms that lead to unequal environmental out-
comes—or “disproportionalities.”3 The double diversion stipulates that
a few powerful firms are granted privileged access to natural resources
and the profits they reap, while nonelites disproportionately experience
harm created by the extraction and production of those resources. Priv-
ileged access is maintained through privileged accounts—largely
unquestioned statements about the necessity of environmental degra-
dation to ensure economic growth (Freudenburg 2005). Those two
“diversions” highlight different dimensions of environmental inequali-
ty: how elites both (1) benefit from environmental “goods” (i.e., resour-
ces and rights), and (2) avoid environmental “bads” (wastes and
responsibilities) (90). Freudenburg’s framework is especially useful for
understanding the mechanisms that could result in environmental
inequality in Appalachia—as privileged access and privileged accounts
are frequently documented in resource-dependent regions.
While some philosophers consider the environment to be a collective
responsibility of all humans, the Earth’s natural resources are actually
controlled by a relatively small number of corporate actors. Therefore,
the first diversion involves the unfettered access to natural resources
granted to elites—regardless of the economic benefits that accrue to
society. For example, Gramling and Freudenburg (2012) explain how
federal offshore oil leases to corporations expanded in the 1980s, but
federal income generated from those leases decreased. Similar analyses
have illustrated how natural resource policy provides companies access
to coal and oil sands on federal land for less than fair market value
(Shearer, Davidson, and Gramling 2012). The second diversion con-
cerns the “disappearing act” of critical accounts or analyses that ques-
tion the concept of privileged access (Freudenburg 2005). For example,
3
Nowak, Bowen, and Cabot (2006) review additional conceptions of
“disproportionality” in interdisciplinary social science and environmental research.
corporate access to offshore oil in the United States is portrayed as nec-

essary for “energy independence,” even though evidence suggests that
the opposite is true (Gramling and Freudenburg 2012).
Freudenburg’s concept of disproportionality contributes to a
broader literature in rural sociology that examines the lack of socioeco-
nomic benefits to resource-dependent communities. A broad review of
301 mining community findings found little evidence to support the
widespread assumption that mining improves local economic condi-
tions (Freudenburg and Wilson 2002). The review found that for every
instance of favorable community impacts from mining, there were 1.58
findings of adverse impacts (Freudenburg and Wilson 2002). One note-
worthy trend in these studies is a “curious anomaly” whereby median
incomes are often higher in mining communities, but overall poverty
and unemployment rates increase or remain the same (Elo and Beale
1985; Freudenburg and Wilson 2002). The anomaly implies that the
influx of mining jobs and incomes does not reduce or alleviate local
poverty or unemployment. Two possible reasons for the anomaly are
(1) the mechanization of mining, which has led to fewer local jobs and
more “remote” office work in locations away from the mines, or (2)
methodological issues that do not capture the residential preferences
of mine workers, who may live in different counties or states, thus not
keeping the incomes locally (Freudenburg and Wilson 2002). A recent
nationwide county-level analysis found mixed associations between coal
mining employment and socioeconomic well-being indicators from
1990 to 2010; for example, counties with high coal mining employment
in 1990 had higher poverty rates and lower incomes in 2000 (Lobao
et al. forthcoming). However, overall trends reversed from 2000 to
2010—and coal mining employment may have served as a buffer from
the effects of the Great Recession. Nonetheless, coal mining is associat-
ed with economic instability across decades (Lobao et al. forthcoming).
Therefore, the dominant narrative that mining undoubtedly provides
benefits for local economies—despite the evidence compiled by socio-
economic studies—is a clear example of the second diversion.
The concept of privileged accounts is recognized throughout the liter-
ature on resource-dependent communities. Recent work examines how
rural communities embody proindustry identities and ideologies, even in
the wake of major environmental health problems (Finewood and
Stroup 2012; Malin 2015; Messer, Shriver, and Adams 2015). Gaventa’s
(1980) pioneering work on Appalachia pointed to a “mobilization of
bias” on behalf of elites in coal-dependent communities. For example,
coal towns controlled access to goods, services, and churches to ensure
community loyalty to companies; some towns even banned outside
newspapers that were critical of the coal companies. Therefore, Gaventa

explains the acquiescence of Appalachian residents as a result of a histor-
ical power imbalance, rather than a culture of apathy.
While company towns have faded in Appalachia, a similar procoal dis-
course continues, even during the industry’s steady downturn. Bell and
York (2010) note how coal companies portray themselves as vital to West
Virginia’s economy, even though coal only amounted to 7 percent of the
state’s gross domestic product in 2004. Bodenhamer (2016) highlights
three common themes that coal companies use to craft a procoal mes-
sage: (1) longevity of the industry, (2) energy security and employment,
and (3) aggression toward environmentalists. Other research illustrates
how connections between coal mining and masculinity can create a
“culture of silence” among men who are hesitant to speak out against
coal (Bell and Braun 2012). Divisive discourse about coal can also erode
social capital and stymie environmental justice organization in communi-
ties (Bell 2009).
In sum, Freudenburg’s double diversion framework identifies institu-
tional mechanisms that perpetuate unequal environmental outcomes.
While the core of his work focuses on environmental privileges enjoyed
by corporate firms, Freudenburg (2005) explicitly notes how environ-
mental inequality is a key component in disproportionality. Recent work
has also proposed the concept of “double disproportionality” whereby
extreme polluters (i.e., “toxic outliers”) are more often located near
low-income and minority communities (Collins, Munoz, and JaJa 2016).
Collins et al. (2016) note two types of disproportionality: (1) polluter
disproportionality, whereby certain corporations and facilities pollute at
levels far beyond their economic value, and (2) exposure disproportion-
ality, in which certain social groups are unequally exposed to hazards
(i.e., disparate proximity). The following analysis tests hypotheses relat-
ed to exposure disproportionality—but focuses on an industry-specific
set of hazards that could be considered “toxic outliers.” The impound-
ments analyzed in this study are above certain size thresholds—ensuring
that they are the largest facilities of their kind in the region. Therefore,
this analysis captures similar dimensions of “double disproportionality”
in a resource-dependent region marred by environmental degradation
and poverty (Bell and York 2010; Eller 2008; Gaventa 1980).
Hypotheses
This article investigates whether neighborhoods with certain socioeco-
nomic disadvantages are disproportionately proximate to coal impound-
ments. In doing so, the analysis also questions the narrative that the
economic benefits of coal mining outweigh the environmental costs for

communities. I use methods similar to other quantitative studies of dis-
parate proximity that focus on whether certain social groups live closer
to environmental hazards. However, I aim to address the vulnerabilities
associated with resource-dependent communities such as poverty, unem-
ployment, mining-related, and rurality variables (Freudenburg and
Wilson 2002).4 Therefore, my first two hypotheses are:
H1: Neighborhoods with higher poverty rates will be closer to

coal impoundments.
H2: Neighborhoods with higher unemployment rates will be
closer to coal impoundments.
These primary hypotheses are related to the double diversion

framework and the concept of disparate proximity. I expect that
neighborhoods near impoundments, on average, will have higher
rates of poverty and unemployment. The double diversion framework
and the concept of disparate proximity both suggest that environmen-
tal burdens are unequally distributed to nonelites. Further, the test of
unemployment highlights the uneven trade-off between jobs and haz-
ards. Privileged accounts suggest that the hazards related to coal min-
ing are justified by the jobs they bring to the region (Bell and York
2010). The presence of higher unemployment in neighborhoods near
impoundments would illustrate a clear disproportionality.
The next hypothesis, in two parts, concerns previous and ongoing
mining:
H3a: Neighborhoods near past mining activities and in areas

that have experienced a greater historical intensity of mining
will be closer to coal impoundments.
H3b: Neighborhoods with higher levels of mining employment
Unlike municipal solid waste, which is often transported to landfills,

coal waste is likely to be stored near sites of extraction and processing.
4
Race-related variables were not significantly associated with impoundment proximity—
which may be because the Appalachian study area is more racially homogenous than the
rest of the United States. However, race may still play an important role in specific cases of
environmental inequality—like predominantly black mining towns near coal waste facilities
in southern West Virginia.
Therefore, I expect proximity to coal mining to be highly correlated

with impoundment proximity. The variables for proximity to past min-
ing activities and historical intensity of mining also identify neighbor-
hoods in mining-intensive subregions like central Appalachia—where
most of the region’s coal impoundments are located (see Figure 1). I
also expect that mining employment will be higher in neighborhoods
closer to impoundments. Mining employment is an important indicator
of economic benefits to weigh against the environmental costs of coal
waste disposal. The following analysis also investigates the relative
importance of mining employment compared with other mining-
related variables.
The final hypothesis, in three parts, concerns the relation of rural
variables to location near impoundments:
H4a: Neighborhoods with greater rural non-farm populations

H4b: Neighborhoods with greater rural farm populations will
be farther from coal impoundments.
H4c: Neighborhoods closer to county seats will be farther from
coal impoundments.
Because coal companies often construct impoundments on large

plots of land in rural areas, I expect rural nonfarm population to be
positively associated with impoundment proximity. In contrast, I
hypothesize that neighborhoods with increased rural farm populations
are likely to be located farther from impoundments. The reverse of
these hypotheses would be that urban neighborhoods are closer to coal
impoundments. While it is clear that the majority of coal impound-
ments are located in the rural coal-mining areas of Appalachia, there
are also several facilities located near more metropolitan areas such as
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Wheeling, West Virginia; and Morgantown,
West Virginia. Further, the dependent variable only measures a neigh-
borhood’s distance to the nearest impoundment, rather than a
“cumulative effect” of being near multiple impoundments. So it is plau-
sible that the influence of metropolitan areas on the data may negate a
distinctly “rural” effect. Additional measurement issues are discussed
below. The final rural variable is a measure of local stratification—dis-
tance to a county seat. County seats play an important role in rural
regions as the centralized locations of jobs, resources, and politics.
Qualitative research in Appalachia also reveals an important spatial
stratification between the powerful (and more populated) county seat
Figure 1. Location of Coal Impoundments in Appalachia.
cities and isolated outlying areas of counties (Duncan 1999). Therefore,

I expect neighborhoods farther from county seats will be closer to coal
impoundments.
Data and Methods

This study uses spatial analysis to identify whether neighborhoods with
certain characteristics are disproportionately proximate to coal
impoundments. The independent variables capture concepts related to
mining proximity and intensity, rurality, and socioeconomic disadvan-
tage. I use the 2000 long-form U.S. census due to the survey’s adequate
sampling of small-scale geographies.5 GIS shapefiles and census data
were obtained from the National Historical GIS (Minnesota Population
Center 2011). This study uses cross-sectional data, meaning it provides
a statistical “snapshot” of associations rather than examining causality
or correlations over time. Quantitative environmental inequality work
has largely consisted of cross-sectional work, due to difficulty in
5
Following the 2000 census, the U.S. Census Bureau switched to the American Commu-
nity Survey to collect data in more frequent intervals. While the survey provides adequate
sampling for metropolitan areas and large cities, there are large margins of error and oth-
er reliability concerns about tract-level estimates (Spielman, Folch, and Nagle 2014).
obtaining longitudinal data on both hazardous facilities and

neighborhood-level social dynamics (Mohai and Saha 2015).6
Units of Analysis
The units of analysis for this study are U.S. census tracts in the Appala-
chian study area in 2000. Tracts are census-designated geographic units
that strive to include an average population size of roughly 4,000 resi-
dents (U.S. Census Bureau 2002). Operationalizing “neighborhoods”
or “communities” using census tracts can be problematic, especially in
rural areas, where tracts may span large geographic areas. However,
tracts provide full coverage of the study region as opposed to census
places, which ignore rural populations outside city limits. Also, tracts
conceptualize “neighborhoods” better than the use of counties, which
can often mask meaningful local dynamics due to their large size.
Study Area
While the geographic definition of Appalachia is subject to debate, this
project uses subregions of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s cov-
erage area in 2014. The commission (2014) divides the 13-state region
into five subregions that have similar topography, demographics, and
economics. I exclude the southern region due to the scarcity of
impoundment data in Alabama. Therefore, the study area consists of
the northern, north central, central, and south central regions of Appa-
lachia (Figure 1).
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable measures tract proximity to the nearest coal
impoundment. I obtained the impoundment data by filing a Freedom
of Information Act request with the federal Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA).7 In response, MSHA provided its coal
impoundment inventory in November 2013. MSHA (2009) only moni-
tors impoundments that meet certain size or safety thresholds. These
impoundments are the largest and most potentially hazardous. The
MSHA data set included geographic coordinates for each
6
There are numerous limitations to cross-sectional work, including the possibility of
omitted variable bias—when a model leaves out an important variable that may influence
the observed relationship (Gordon 2010).
7
I expound on the details of the data collection method used in this study elsewhere
(Greenberg 2016).
impoundment. However, the MSHA data was only current for 2013, so I
had to determine which impoundments were active in 2000 in order to
match the time frame of the census data. I obtained impoundment cre-
ation dates by filing additional public records requests to government
agencies in Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia.8 The final
database consisted of 234 coal impoundments in the study area, as of
2000. It is possible that additional impoundments existed in 2000 but
have since been reclaimed or are no longer monitored by MSHA.
Some studies of environmental inequality use dichotomous variables
that measure whether (1) a hazardous facility falls within a geographic
unit or (2) a unit of analysis falls within a distance buffer of a facility
(Mohai and Saha 2007). But Downey (2006) argues that spatial relation-
ships should be conceptualized with a continuous raw distance variable,
rather than relying on specific geographic units and buffers. Therefore,
the dependent variable in this study is the distance in meters between
the centroid of a tract and the location of the nearest impoundment. I
use the natural log of the variable because it reduced the skewness
score from .942 to 2.541, making it closer to a normal distribution.
Table 1 shows that the average distance from a tract to a coal impound-
ment was roughly 63 kilometers. While distance buffers around
impoundments are not used as part of this analysis, it is important to
note that 602,064 people lived in tracts whose centroid was within 6
kilometers of an impoundment, as of 2000.
Predictor Variables
Socioeconomic status. In order to assess disproportionality among
neighborhoods in Appalachia, I examine whether coal impoundments
are near tracts that experience higher poverty and unemployment.
These variables are frequently used in studies of socioeconomic out-
comes in mining-dependent communities (Freudenburg and Wilson
2002). Poverty was determined by whether a household’s income in
1999 was below family-size-based thresholds (Bishaw and Iceland 2002).
Tracts in the study area had a higher rate of poverty (15.2) than the
nationwide rate (12.4). The Census Bureau measures civilian unem-
ployment as individuals in the labor force over the age of 16 who did
not report working in the previous week in 2000 (Clark and Weismantle
8
Names of impoundments without date of creation data were subject to an Internet
search to see if they existed prior to 2000. This search revealed documents that confirmed
the existence of four additional impoundments prior to 2000 (sources available on
request).
Table 1. Summary Statistics.

Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum
Dependent variable
Distance to nearest 62.897 52.108 .297 256.637
impoundment
(kilometers)
Natural log of distance 10.630 1.012 5.693 12.455
to nearest impoundment
Independent variables
Socioeconomic
% below poverty 15.265 10.373 0 100
% unemployed 6.662 4.716 0 67.792
Mining
% employed in mining 1.135 2.931 0 32.881
Distance to nearest 28.405 30.420 94.006 199.272
abandoned and sealed
mine (kilometers)
Mine count within 1,017.23 1,453.14 0 5,443
150 kilometers
Rural
Distance to nearest 11.326 7.458 .001 43.210
county seat (kilometers)
% rural nonfarm 41.921 41.574 0 100
% rural farm 1.556 3.029 0 29.679
N 5 4,203.
2002). The unemployment rate in tracts within the Appalachian study

area (6.6) was slightly higher than the national average of 5.8.
Mining factors. This study uses variables that operationalize tract-
level mining-related factors. I include the percentage of the workforce
16 years or older who are employed in mining according to the U.S.
census in order to capture whether a neighborhood benefits from jobs
related to mining. I constructed two additional mining-based variables
in GIS: (1) the distance from the centroid of the tract to the nearest
abandoned and sealed coal mine and (2) a count of the number of all
abandoned and sealed coal mines within a 150-kilometer buffer of the
centroid of a tract (mine count). Only mines that were abandoned and
sealed in 2000 or prior were included. I obtained mine locations from
MSHA’s Mine Data Retrieval System. Distance to the nearest aban-
doned and sealed mine indicates a historical presence of mining near
the tract. The “mine count” functions as a control for tracts in geo-
graphic regions like central Appalachia that have a history of extensive
mining in the region.
Rural location. This analysis uses several measures of rurality to con-
trol for the rural location of impoundments. Qualitative and historical
research suggests that neighborhoods on the outskirts of counties face
social marginalization and uneven development (Duncan 1999; Eller

2008), so I include a tract’s distance to a county seat in the analysis.
That variable was measured as the raw distance in meters from the cen-
troid of each tract to the centroid of the nearest county seat. The rural
variables also include the percentage rural nonfarm and the percentage
rural farm population from the 2000 census. The U.S. census defines
the rural farm population as residents who live on farms that produce
more than $1,000 of agricultural production (U.S. Census Bureau
2002). The rural nonfarm population is calculated by subtracting the
rural farm population from the total rural population (defined as any
place with less than 2,500 residents or outside a designated urban clus-
ter). The use of the census definition of rurality is limiting—as the
2,500 population threshold does not adequately capture the fine-
grained nature of rurality and urbanity. The rural classifications used
by many scholars could not be used in the spatial regression analysis,
which requires the use of all continuous—not categorical—variables.
Scholars have also noted the measurement problems caused by the
blurring of social and spatial boundaries between urban and rural areas
(Lichter and Brown 2011). Nonetheless, the measures used here pro-
vide a rough proxy for distinguishing between neighborhoods located
within towns or cities and those outside urban areas.
Analytical strategy. This study utilizes spatial regression to control
for spatial dependence between observations. Spatial regression has
proved necessary in past studies of socioenvironmental topics in rural
areas of the United States (Chi 2010; Clement, Ergas, and Greiner
2015). Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression assumes that all
observations in the analysis are independent. But spatial autocorrela-
tion in cases where “location matters” can violate this basic assump-
tion (Dubin 1998:304). Spatial autocorrelation occurs when
observations impact one another based on their spatial proximity
(Dubin 1998; Tobler 1970). Spatial dependence is often ignored in
social science analyses, leading to an underestimation of the actual
variance in the data (Ward and Gleditsch 2008). In an environmental
inequality assessment of transportation-related emissions in Florida,
Chakraborty (2009) found that the OLS coefficients for several socio-
economic indicators substantially weakened when spatial depen-
dence was controlled for through spatial regression. Chakraborty also
notes that the model-fit diagnostics improved in the spatial regression
models, indicating that spatial regression provided a “more correct or
valid model” (689).
In order to control for spatial dependence, I assigned distance-
based, row-standardized weights to the observations using GeoDa
software. The software draws a Euclidean distance radius around the

centroid of each tract to determine “neighbors” (Anselin, Syabri,
and Kho 2006). These weight parameters set a maximum distance at
which observations influence one another spatially. Extensive testing
of different distances indicated that 16-kilometer distance-based
weights adequately controlled for spatial dependence. These weights
resulted in only 64 neighborless tracts out of 4,203. The average
number of neighbors for a tract was roughly 42 and the median was
14. Tracts with the largest numbers of neighbors were located in
metropolitan areas of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Youngstown,
Ohio. Compared to studies of urban areas, 16 kilometers is a large
distance for assigning weights. For example, Chakraborty (2009)
uses 2-kilometer weights in his analysis of Tampa, Florida. But the
larger distance threshold is justified given the study area and unit of
analysis. Some census tracts in Appalachia cover larger geographic
areas due to lower population density. Further, the 16-kilometer dis-
tance is not so large that it obscures the spatial relationship between
tracts. In other words, it is reasonable to assert that neighborhoods
within 16 kilometers influence one another socially and
economically.
Moran’s I values of the OLS regression models were significant, indi-
cating spatial autocorrelation in the models. Therefore, those results
violated the assumption of independence between observations and are
not presented. Further, OLS diagnostics (the Lagrange Multiplier) sug-
gested that spatial dependence was not fully explained by the indepen-
dent variables and thus violated “the assumption that the error terms
are independent of one another” (Ward and Gleditsch 2008:66; see
also Anselin 2005). Therefore, following Anselin’s (2005) instructions,
I utilized a spatial error model for the spatial regression. The equation
for the spatial error model is summarized as:
y5X b1kW n1e
where y is the natural log of the distance to the nearest impoundment,

X indicates the matrix of values of the predictor variables, b represents
the vector of coefficients for each predictor variable, k is the coefficient
for the errors that are spatially autocorrelated (spatial autoregressive
coefficient), W is the term that denotes the extent of the spatial weights
matrix, n indicates the spatial component of the error term, and e rep-
resents the independent error that is not spatially autocorrelated
(Anselin 2005; Ward and Gleditsch 2008). Therefore, the term kWn
represents the error terms (n) that are weighted and controlled for
utilizing the distance-based matrix (W) and the spatial autoregressive

coefficient (k) (Chakraborty 2009).
Results
Bivariate Correlations
The bivariate correlations in Table 2 show that most of the relationships
between distance to the nearest coal impoundment and the indepen-
dent variables are significant in the expected directions. First, both pov-
erty and unemployment are negatively correlated with distance to
impoundment, indicating that neighborhoods closer to impoundments
are associated with higher levels of poverty and unemployment. The
mining-related variables are significantly correlated with the dependent
variable, as expected. Neighborhoods closer to impoundments are asso-
ciated with (1) higher rates of mining employment, (2) greater num-
bers of mines within 150 kilometers, and (3) being closer to an
abandoned and sealed mine. Distance to a county seat does not have a
statistically significant relationship with distance to an impoundment,
but neighborhoods with higher percentages of farm populations are
significantly associated with being farther from a coal impoundment.
In contrast to the hypothesis, the percentage rural nonfarm population
has a weak, but significant, positive correlation with impoundment
proximity.
The moderately high correlation (.610) between poverty and unem-
ployment is expected since unemployment is often a potential cause of
poverty. Therefore, I present these variables in separate models below.9
Otherwise, correlations between the independent variables in Table 2
do not signal high levels of collinearity.
Spatial Regression Results

Table 3 presents the spatial error model results and highlights the two
primary hypotheses regarding poverty and unemployment.10 Model 1
examines poverty in isolation from the other independent variables
and finds that a 1 percent increase in poverty is associated with a .07
9
Several environmental inequality studies construct factors that consolidate highly cor-
related indicators of socioeconomic deprivation (i.e., Smith 2009). However, that strategy
runs the risk of deflating the explanatory power of individual variables. Further, I do not
pose a hypothesis about the effect of poverty on impoundment proximity, net of unem-
ployment. Additional models with both variables are available on request.
10
The insignificant Moran’s I of the regression residuals and significant spatial autore-
gressive coefficients (Lambda) across all the models in Table 3 indicate that the 16-
kilometer distance-based weights adequately controlled for spatial dependence.
Table 2. Bivariate Correlations between All Pairs of Dependent and Independent Variables.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Natural log of distance 1.000
to nearest
impoundment
2. % below poverty 2.158*** 1.000
3. % unemployed 2.148*** .610*** 1.000
4. % employed in mining 2.430*** .241*** .183*** 1.000
5. Distance to nearest .680*** 2.132*** 2.086*** 2.244*** 1.000
abandoned and sealed
mine
6. Mine count within 150 2.331*** .288*** .130*** .525*** 2.351*** 1.000
kilometers
7. Distance to nearest 2.013 2.191*** 2.120*** .123*** .101*** 2.019 1.000
county seat
8. % rural nonfarm .069*** 2.059*** 2.081*** .319*** .050*** .232*** .392*** 1.000
9. % rural farm .150*** .019*** 2.069*** .019 .049** .134*** .174*** .524*** 1.000
N 5 4,203.
***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).
Resource-Based Environmental Inequality — Greenberg
167
Table 3. Coefficients from Spatial Error Regression of Tract Proximity

to a Coal Impoundment on Independent Variables, 2000.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Socioeconomic
% below poverty 2.0007† 2.0009* — —
(2.007) (2.009)
% unemployed — — 2.0016† 2.0016*
(2.008) (2.008)
Mining
Distance to — .011*** — .011***
nearest abandoned (.326) (.331)
and sealed mine
(kilometers)
% employed in — 2.037*** — 2.037***
mining (2.109) (2.110)
Mine count within — 2.115*** — 2.116***
150 kilometers (2.167) (2.168)
(thousands)
Rural
Distance to — 2.003*** — 2.003***
nearestcounty (2.023) (2.025)
seat (kilometers)
% rural nonfarm — .0004* — .0004**
(.016) (.016)
% rural farm — .007*** — .007***
(.019) (.020)
Constant 11.058*** 10.799*** 10.803*** 10.792***
Lambda .960*** .944*** .960*** .944***
Multicollinearity 3.251 7.346 3.144 7.067
number
Log likelihood 2977.462 2689.680 2977.233 2690.139
Log likelihood 4986.03 3557.07 4992.907 3551.831
change
from OLS
models
Akaike info 1958.92 1395.37 1958.47 1396.28
criterion
Moran’s I of .003 2.003 2.003 2.003
residualsa
N 5 4,203 tracts.
Notes: Standardized coefficient estimates are presented in parentheses. Coefficients
are rounded to the nearest thousandth, except where noted.
a
Significance of Moran’s I of residuals is based on 999 permutations.
†p < .10; *p < .05; **p <. 01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).
percent decrease in distance to nearest impoundment. However, this

relationship borders on statistical significance (p 5 .08). The poverty
variable does reach statistical significance (p 5 .02), though, after incor-
porating the mining and rural variables in Model 2. As expected, neigh-
borhoods near coal impoundments are more likely to (1) be closer to
past mining activity (distance to abandoned and sealed mine), (2) have
higher levels of mining employment, and (3) be located in a region

with historical intensity of mining (number of mines within 150 kilo-
meters). Model 2 shows that a 1-kilometer increase in distance to an
abandoned and sealed mine is associated with a 1.1 percent increase in
the distance to the nearest impoundment.11 A 1 percent rise in mining
employment is correlated with a 3.7 percent decrease in distance to an
impoundment. Also, a 1,000-mine increase in the mine count is associ-
ated with an 11 percent decrease in distance to an impoundment.
Model 2 also shows that, despite the lack of a bivariate correlation,
neighborhoods farther from a county seat are likely to be closer to an
impoundment, when controlling for spatial dependence and other vari-
ables in the model: a 1-kilometer increase in the distance to a county
seat is associated with a .3 percent decrease in distance to an impound-
ment. Also, an increase in rural farm population is associated with an
increase in distance to an impoundment—suggesting that neighbor-
hoods with farming are farther from impoundments. However, rural
nonfarm population is significant in the unexpected direction: an
increase in rural nonfarm population is associated with a slight increase
in distance to an impoundment. The log likelihood and Akaike info cri-
terion statistics show a major improvement in the model fit after the
incorporation of the mining and rural variables.
Models 3 and 4 examine unemployment, in place of poverty, and
find similar outcomes. In Model 3, a 1 percent increase in unemploy-
ment is associated with a .2 percent decrease in distance to the nearest
impoundment. Similarly to poverty, unemployment borders on statisti-
cal significance in Model 3 (p 5 .08), but reaches statistical significance
(p 5 .05) in Model 4. The coefficients for the mining and rural variables
in Model 4 are nearly identical to those in Model 2.
The standardized coefficient estimates are presented to determine
the relative importance of each variable in the models. I calculated the
standardized coefficient by subtracting the mean of the variable from
each observation, dividing by the standard deviation, and running the
regression models again (Gordon 2010). These coefficient estimates, in
tandem with the bivariate correlations, reveal that the mining variables
are the strongest predictors. However, there is significant variation
among the mining variables: Distance to an abandoned and sealed
mine has the largest standardized coefficient in Model 2 (.326), fol-
lowed by mine count (.167) and percentage employed in mining
11
The following interpretations are approximations calculated by multiplying the coef-
ficients by 100 to determine the percentage increase in y. This interpretation is valid when
dealing with small coefficients like the ones in this study (Gordon 2010:320).
(2.109). Poverty (.009) and unemployment (.008) have small standard-

ized coefficients in their respective models, indicating a weak relative
importance to the overall model.
Discussion
The results above, contextualized within the double diversion frame-
work, reveal important aspects of environmental inequality in Appala-
chia through three key findings. First, the spatial regression results find
that neighborhoods with higher rates of unemployment and poverty,
on average, are closer to impoundments across Appalachia. Second,
descriptive statistics and the multivariate models illustrate an uneven
balance between the economic benefits and environmental costs of
coal mining for Appalachian neighborhoods. Finally, the rural variables
reveal that coal impoundments are proximate to a variety of community
contexts. I elaborate on each of these findings and discuss opportuni-
ties for future research below.
First, Models 2 and 4 suggest that neighborhoods near impound-
ments are slightly more likely to have higher rates of poverty and unem-
ployment, even after controlling for spatial dependence and other
variables in the model. This result is similar to urban environmental
inequality studies that find evidence of disparate proximity. These data
also support the concept of exposure disproportionality—those living
closest to coal impoundments are burdened by environmental harm
and socioeconomic disadvantage. However, the strength of the associa-
tion between poverty (or unemployment) and impoundment proximity
is relatively weak. Interestingly, the inclusion of the mining and rural
variables increases the statistical significance of the socioeconomic vari-
ables. That finding runs counter to some urban studies which show that
industrial and manufacturing employment can confound the relation-
ship between race and class and hazard proximity (Anderton et al.
1994; Bowen 2002).
The full models, in concert with descriptive statistics, also illustrate
an unequal trade-off between economic benefits and environmental
hazards, which is fundamental to the double diversion framework. Prior
research suggests that resource-dependent communities may accept
the risk of environmental hazards in exchange for much-needed jobs
(Freudenburg 2006; Gould 1991). However, that false choice is perpet-
uated by unquestioned accounts of the economic contribution of
resource extraction to communities (Bell and York 2010). I find that
even though neighborhoods near impoundments are likely to have
higher rates of mining employment, impoundments do not confer a
major economic boon. In fact, only 25 of 4,203 tracts in Appalachia

(.59 percent) had 20 percent or more of the workforce employed in
mining in 2000. The strongest predictor of impoundment proximity, as
indicated by the bivariate correlation and standardized coefficients, is
not mining employment—it is a tract’s distance to an abandoned and
sealed mine. Proximity to past mining activities accounts for substantial-
ly more variation in impoundment proximity than mining employment,
suggesting that historic presence of mining is far more important in pre-
dicting impoundment proximity than current mining benefits. Further,
for every worker employed in coal mining in the study area in 2000,
there are roughly 13 residents who live in a neighborhood within 6 kilo-
meters of an impoundment.12 In tandem, these findings point to a
clear disproportionality between economic benefits and environmental
harms of coal mining in Appalachia. However, it should be noted that
this study only analyzes the outcomes of the double diversion—rather
than the mechanisms that drive “privileged access.” Additional research
on coal companies’ specific shares of production, employment, and
hazard creation could answer Freudenburg’s call for more work on
identifying industry-specific outliers.
Measures of rurality were also significant predictors of impoundment
proximity. The results demonstrate that tracts farther from county seats
are more likely to be closer to impoundments, when controlling for the
other variables in the model. County seats are frequently the center of
local power relations in rural areas due to larger populations, more job
opportunities, and the presence of local government services. Further,
economic development policy in Appalachia benefited more populated
areas of the region, while marginalizing areas on the “periphery of
county political and economic life . . . the backyards of poor counties”
(Eller 2008:214). Therefore, the significance of distance to a county
seat illustrates another potential vulnerability of communities near
impoundments. The models also find that tracts with larger farm popu-
lations, on average, are “buffered” from the burden of impoundments.
However, rural nonfarm population is a significant predictor in the
unexpected direction: increased rural nonfarm population is correlat-
ed with being farther from impoundments. Therefore, impoundments
are slightly more likely to be located near neighborhoods with a higher
percentage urban population—defined in the U.S. census as being in a
12
There were 44,718 coal-mining jobs in the study area and 602,064 residents within 6
kilometers of an impoundment in 2000 (Energy Information Administration 2001). The
6-kilometer buffer is approximated based on a 4-mile EPA-designated buffer zone for risk
to water-based hazards (Harner et al. 2002).
city or town with a population of more than 2,500 or part of a designat-

ed urban area. There are a few explanations for this contradictory find-
ing. First, the dependent variable measures distance to a single, nearest
impoundment. Therefore, one impoundment near a large urban area
could influence the results. Urban areas also have greater numbers of
census tracts due to high population density—which, again, may result
in a “bias” toward urban neighborhoods. For example, a single
impoundment near the metropolitan area of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
could be within 6 kilometers of 50 tracts, while an impoundment in
rural central Appalachia may only be 6 kilometers from two tracts.
Nonetheless, the bulk of coal impoundments are concentrated in rural
nonfarm areas in central Appalachia. In fact, 206 of 234 impoundments
are located in tracts that are more than 50 percent rural nonfarm—sug-
gesting that impoundments are still a rural issue.13 As mentioned in the
hypothesis section, the use of a dependent variable that considers
“cumulative effects” of multiple impoundments or other coal-related
hazards may reveal a more significant rural nonfarm relationship
(Huang and London 2012). Future research could also examine coal
impoundment proximity across different urban and rural contexts—
but a too tightly defined region around coal impoundments runs the
risk of selecting on the dependent variable and losing important varia-
tion across neighborhoods. Finally, the limitations of the U.S. census
definition of rural might explain the lack of a negative association
between rural nonfarm population and impoundment proximity. The
rural “cutoff” population of 2,500 does not adequately address the fine-
grained nature of many rural-urban classifications. Nonetheless, the
results of this study reveal that the impacts of coal mining and
impoundments extend beyond the central Appalachian subregion—
and may also pose environmental problems in urban contexts, as well.
Conclusion
Coal waste impoundments tend to draw policymaking and scholarly
attention only when they fail, but they pose an ever-present threat for
hundreds of communities in Appalachia. This study draws attention to
this hazardous form of waste disposal as a potential source of resource-
based environmental inequality. The spatial regression results reveal a
significant, but weak, correlation between measures of neighborhood-
level socioeconomic disadvantage and proximity to coal waste
13
Also, 182 of 234 impoundments (77.7 percent) were in tracts with 80 or more percent
rural nonfarm population. Only 6 of 234 impoundments (2.5 percent) were in neighbor-
hoods with an urban population of 80 percent or more.
impoundments. Further, descriptive statistics reveal an unequal balance

between the economic benefits and environmental and social costs of
coal waste disposal. The double diversion framework would suggest that
this disproportionality is created by coal companies’ privileged access
to resources and maintained by privileged accounts about the econom-
ic vitality of the coal industry.
The framework presented here could prove useful in future work
that intersects research on environmental inequality and resource-
dependent communities. First, there are numerous other extraction-
related hazards in the United States that are rarely addressed by sociolo-
gists and other scholars. For example, copper, gold, silver, and lead
mining operations (both past and present) create large amounts of tail-
ings, but few studies examine the communities most proximate to
them. Those waste sites could also threaten local tourism-based econo-
mies, as evidenced in Silverado, Colorado, when a century-old gold
mining site spilled orange-colored waste into the Animas River in 2015
(Thompson 2016). Second, additional research could also examine the
social dimensions of mining waste hazards on an international scale.
Most of the world’s high-grade ore has already been extracted, leaving
behind only low-grade resources that have higher proportions of waste
materials (Hudson-Edwards 2016). Therefore, resource-based environ-
mental inequality may become an increasingly significant global chal-
lenge in years to come. It would be prudent for sociologists and other
social scientists to play a role in documenting and offering solutions for
the alleviation and prevention of those inequalities—which may dispro-
portionately burden rural, poor, and indigenous groups across the
world.
This study also has important policy implications—which center on
the acknowledgment of coal waste as a significant environmental justice
issue. Local activists, organizations, and policymakers are engaged in
discussions on how to ensure a “just transition” away from coal depen-
dency in Appalachia. While the fate of coal mining has caused tension
in some communities (Bell 2009), many residents also recognize the
need for sustainable solutions in coal’s wake. In the past, politicians
focused primarily on economic development efforts to combat persis-
tent social problems—which has led to unequal outcomes across the
region (Eller 2008). Therefore, policy discussions about a just transition
in Appalachia must consider the interconnected nature of social, eco-
nomic, and environmental justice (Todd et al. 2010). For example, coal
waste sites or other environmental hazards may threaten residents’
health and inhibit economic growth in certain parts of Appalachia. A
development approach that only seeks economic solutions could
neglect numerous at-risk areas. Therefore, environmental justice

should be a core consideration in planning for a future beyond coal in
Appalachia. An initial step to alleviating risks related to coal waste haz-
ards would be to increase funding to better understand the risks associ-
ated with coal waste impoundments. More research should be
undertaken to assess (1) the geophysical characteristics around mine
waste sites and (2) the impact of mine waste on human and environ-
mental health (Hudson-Edwards 2016). The current lack of scientific
inquiry on mine waste amounts to another form of privileged access—
whereby mining companies are allowed to dispose of waste using the
cheapest method available, without a holistic accounting of the social,
environmental, and health “costs” of their practices.
References
Aken, Benoit Van, John Quaranta, Benjamin Mack, Hui Yu, Alan Ducatman, and Paul
Ziekiewicz. 2014. “Environmental Contaminants in Coal Slurry Intended for Under-
ground Injection in the State of West Virginia.” Journal of Environmental Engineering
141(1). Retrieved March 6, 2015 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943–
7870.0000874).
Anderson, Andy, Douglas Anderton, John Michael Oakes, and Michael R. Fraser. 1994.
“Environmental Equity: Evaluating TSDF Siting over the Past Two Decades.” Waste
Age, July, pp. 83–100.
Anderton, Douglas L., Andy B. Anderson, John Michael Oakes, and Michael R. Fraser.
1994. “Environmental Equity: The Demographics of Dumping.” Demography 31(2):
229–48.
Anselin, Luc. 2005. “Exploring Spatial Data with GeoDa: A Workbook.” Retrieved November
10, 2014 (https://geodacenter.asu.edu/system/files/geodaworkbook.pdf).
Anselin, Luc, Ibnu Syabri, and Youngihn Kho. 2006. “GeoDa: An Introduction to Spatial
Data Analysis.” Geographical Analysis 38(1):5–22.
Appalachian Regional Commission. 2014. “Subregions in Appalachia.” Retrieved August 4,
2014 (http://www.arc.gov/research/MapsofAppalachia.asp?MAP_ID531).
Bell, Shannon Elizabeth. 2009. “‘There Ain’t No Bond in Town like There Used to Be’:
The Destruction of Social Capital in the West Virginia Coalfields.” Sociological Forum
24(3):631–57.
———. 2013. Our Roots Run Deep as Ironweed: Appalachian Women and the Fight for Environ-
mental Justice. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Bell, Shannon Elizabeth and Yvonne A. Braun. 2010. “Coal, Identity, and the Gendering
of Environmental Justice Activism in Central Appalachia.” Gender and Society 24(6):
794–813.
Bell, Shannon Elizabeth and Richard York. 2010. “Community Economic Identity: The
Coal Industry and Ideology Construction in West Virginia.” Rural Sociology 75(1):
111–43.
Bishaw, Alemayehu and John Iceland. 2003. Poverty: 1999. U.S. Census Bureau. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved October 10, 2015 (https://www.
census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-19.pdf).
Bodenhamer, Aysha. 2016. “King Coal: A Study of Mountaintop Removal, Public Dis-
course, and Power in Appalachia.” Society and Natural Resources 29(10):1139–53.
Bowen, William. 2002. “An Analytical Review of Environmental Justice Research: What Do
We Really Know?” Environmental Management 29(1):3–15.
Brulle, Robert J. and David N. Pellow. 2006. “Environmental Justice: Human Health and
Environmental Inequalities.” Annual Review of Public Health (27):103–24.
Bullard, Robert D. 1994. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. 2nd ed.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Buttel, Frederick H. 2002. “Environmental Sociology and the Sociology of Natural Resour-
ces: Institutional Histories and Intellectual Legacies.” Society and Natural Resources
15(3):205–11.
Chakraborty, Jayajit. 2009. “Automobiles, Air Toxics, and Adverse Health Risks: Environ-
mental Inequities in Tampa Bay, Florida.” Annals of the Association of American Geogra-
phers 99(4):674–97.
Chi, Guangqing. 2010. “The Impacts of Highway Expansion on Population Change: An
Integrated Spatial Approach.” Rural Sociology 75(1):58–89.
Clark, Sandra Luckett and Mai Weismantle. 2003. Employment Status: 2000. U.S. Census
Bureau. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved October 10,
2015 (https://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-18.pdf).
Clement, Matthew Thomas, Christina Ergas, and Patrick Trent Greiner. 2015. “The Envi-
ronmental Consequences of Rural and Urban Population Change: An Exploratory
Spatial Panel Study of Forest Cover in the Southern United States, 2001–2006.” Rural
Sociology 80(1):108–36.
Clough, Emily and Derek Bell. 2016. “Just Fracking: A Distributive Environmental Justice
Analysis of Unconventional Gas Development in Pennsylvania, USA.” Environmental
Research Letters 11(2):025001.
Collins, Mary B., Ian Munoz, and Joseph JaJa. 2016. “Linking ‘Toxic Outliers’ to Environ-
mental Justice Communities.” Environmental Research Letters 11(1):015004.
Downey, Liam. 2005. “Assessing Environmental Inequality: How the Conclusions We Draw
Vary according to the Definitions We Employ.” Sociological Spectrum 25(3):349–69.
———. 2006. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Reconceptualize Spatial Rela-
tionships and Ecological Context.” American Journal of Sociology 112(2):567–612.
Driscoll, Adam and Bob Edwards. 2009. “From Farms to Factories: The Environmental
Consequences of Swine Industrialization in North Carolina.” Pp. 153–75 in Twenty
Lessons in Environmental Sociology, edited by K. A. Gould and T. L. Lewis. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Dubin, Robin A. 1998. “Spatial Autocorrelation: A Primer.” Journal of Housing Economics
7(4):304–27.
Ducatman, Alan, Paul Ziemkiewicz, John Quaranta, Tamara Vandivort, Ben Mack, Benoit
VanAken. 2013. Coal Slurry Waste Underground Injection Assessment. West Virginia Uni-
versity. Retrieved November 19, 2014 (http://www.wvdhhr.org/oehs/documents/
coal.slurry.waste.underground.injection.assessment–final.pdf).
Duncan, Cynthia M. 1999. Worlds Apart: Why Poverty Persists in Rural America. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Edwards, Bob and Anthony Ladd. 2000. “Environmental Justice, Swine Production, and
Farm Loss in North Carolina.” Sociological Spectrum 20(3):263–90.
Eilperin, Juliet and Steven Mufson. 2013. “Many Coal Sludge Impoundments Have Weak Walls,
Federal Study Says.” Washington Post, April 24. Retrieved November 12, 2014 (http://www.
washingtonpost.com/national/health–science/many–coal–sludge–impoundments–have–
weak–walls–federal–study–says/2013/04/24/76c5be2a–acf9-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_
story.html).
Eller, Ronald D. 2008. Uneven Ground: Appalachia since 1945. Lexington, KY: University
Press of Kentucky.
Elo, I. T. and C. L. Beale. 1985. Natural Resources and Rural Poverty: An Overview. Washing-
ton, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Resources for the Future.
Energy Information Administration. 2001. Coal Industry Annual 2000. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Energy.
Erikson, Kai. 1976. Everything in Its Path: Destruction of Community in the Buffalo Creek Flood.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
———. 1994. A New Species of Trouble: Explorations in Disaster, Trauma, and Community. New
York: Norton.
Ezell, Tim, Dayton Lambert, and Eric Ogle. 2012. Strategies for Economic Improvement in
Appalachia’s Distressed Counties. Knoxville, TN: Appalachian Regional Commission.
Retrieved April 12, 2016 (http://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/strategiesfor-
economicimprovementinappalachiasdistressedruralcounties21.pdf).
Field, Donald R., A. E. Luloff, and Richard S. Krannich. 2002. “Revisiting the Origins of
and Distinctions between Natural Resource Sociology and Environmental Sociology.”
Society and Natural Resources 15(3):213–27.
Finewood, Michael H. and Laura J. Stroup. 2012. “Fracking and the Neoliberalization of
the Hydro-Social Cycle in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale.” Journal of Contemporary
Water Research and Education 147(1):72–79.
Flint, Courtney G. and A. E. Luloff. 2005. “Natural Resource-Based Communities, Risk,
and Disaster: An Intersection of Theories.” Society and Natural Resources 18(5):399–
412.
Freudenburg, William R. 2005. “Privileged Access, Privileged Accounts: Toward a Socially
Structured Theory of Resources and Discourses.” Social Forces 84(1):89–114.
———. 2006. “Environmental Degradation, Disproportionality, and the Double Diversion:
Reaching Out, Reaching Ahead, and Reaching Beyond.” Rural Sociology 71(1):3–32.
Freudenburg, William R. and Lisa J. Wilson. 2002. “Mining the Data: Analyzing the Eco-
nomic Implications of Mining for Nonmetropolitan Regions.” Sociological Inquiry
72(4):549–75.
Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Val-
ley. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Gordon, Rachel A. 2010. Regression Analysis for the Social Sciences. New York: Routledge.
Gould, Kenneth A. 1991. “The Sweet Smell of Money: Economic Dependency and Local
Environmental Political Mobilization.” Society and Natural Resources 4(2):133–50.
Gramling, Robert and William R. Freudenburg. 2012. “A Century of Macondo: United
States Energy Policy and the BP Blowout Catastrophe.” American Behavioral Scientist
56(1):48–75.
Greenberg, Pierce. 2016. “Strengthening Sociological Research through Public Records
Requests.” Social Currents 3(2):110–17.
Harner, John, Kee Warner, John Pierce, and Tom Huber. 2002. “Urban Environmental
Justice Indices.” Professional Geographer 54(3):318–31.
Harrison, Jill Lindsey. 2011. Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hendryx, Michael. 2013. “Personal and Family Health in Rural Areas of Kentucky with
and without Mountaintop Coal Mining.” Journal of Rural Health 29(s1):79–88.
Hooks, Gregory and Chad L. Smith. 2004. “The Treadmill of Destruction: National Sacri-
fice Areas and Native Americans.” American Sociological Review 69(4):558–75.
Huang, Ganlin and Jonathan K. London. 2012. “Cumulative Environmental Vulnerability
and Environmental Justice in California’s San Joaquin Valley.” International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 9(5):1593–608.
Hudson-Edwards, Karen. 2016. “Tackling Mine Wastes.” Science 352(6283):288–90.
ICOLD (International Committee on Large Dams). Committee on Tailings Dams and
Waste Lagoons. 2001. Tailings Dams Risk of Dangerous Occurrences: Lessons Learnt from
Practical Experiences. Paris, France: UNEP. Retrieved June 17, 2015 (http://www.unep.
fr/shared/publications/pdf/2891-TailingsDams.pdf).
Johnston, Jill E., Emily Werder, and Daniel Sebastian. 2016. “Wastewater Disposal Wells,
Fracking, and Environmental Injustice in Southern Texas.” American Journal of Public
Health 106(3):550–56.
Kiernan, Paul. 2016. “Mining Dams Grow to Colossal Heights, and So Do the Risks.” Wall
Street Journal, April 5. Retrieved April 14, 2016 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/brazils–
samarco–disaster–mining–dams–grow–to–colossal–heights–and–so–do–the–risks–
1459782411).
Lewis, Helen, Linda Johnson, and Donald Askins (eds.). 1978. Colonialism in Modern Ameri-
ca: The Appalachian Case. Boone, NC: Appalachian Consortium, Inc.
Lichter, Daniel T. and David L. Brown. 2011. “Rural America in an Urban Society: Chang-
ing Spatial and Social Boundaries.” Annual Review of Sociology 37(1):565–92.
Lobao, Linda. 2004. “Continuity and Change in Place Stratification: Spatial Inequality
and Middle-Range Territorial Units.” Rural Sociology 69(1):1–30.
Lobao, Linda, Minyu Zhou, Mark Partridge, and Michael Betz. Forthcoming. “Poverty, Place,
and Coal Employment across Appalachia and the United States in a New Economic Era.”
Rural Sociology. Retrieved April 10, 2016 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12098).
Locke, Christina. 2015. “Frac Sand Mines Are Preferentially Sited in Unzoned Rural
Areas.” PLoS ONE 10(7):e0131386.
Malin, Stephanie A. 2015. The Price of Nuclear Power: Uranium Communities and Environmen-
tal Justice. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
McSpirit, Stephanie, Sharon Hardesty, and Robert Welch. 2002. The Martin County Project:
Researching Issues and Building Civic Capacity after an Environmental Disaster. Richmond,
KY: Eastern Kentucky University.
McSpirit, Stephanie, Shaunna Scott, Duane Gill, Sharon Hardesty, and Dewayne Sims.
2007. “Risk Perceptions after a Coal Waste Impoundment Failure: A Survey Asses-
sment.” Southern Rural Sociology 22(2):83–110.
Messer, Chris M., Thomas E. Shriver, and Alison E. Adams. 2015. “Collective Identity and
Memory: A Comparative Analysis of Community Response to Environmental Haz-
ards.” Rural Sociology 80(3):314–39.
Michalek, Stanley J., George H. Gardner, and Kelvin K. Wu. 1996. Accidental Releases of Slur-
ry and Water from Coal Impoundments through Abandoned Underground Coal Mines. Pitts-
burgh, PA: Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center, Mine Safety and Health
Administration. Retrieved July 6, 2014 (http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/
TECHRPT/MINEWSTE/ASDSO2.pdf).
Minnesota Population Center. 2011. “National Historical Geographic Information System: Ver-
sion 2.0.” Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Mohai, Paul, David Pellow, and J. Timmons Roberts. 2009. “Environmental Justice.” Annu-
al Review of Environment and Resources 34(1):405–30.
Mohai, Paul and Robin Saha. 2007. “Racial Inequality in the Distribution of Hazardous
Waste: A National-Level Reassessment.” Social Problems 54(3):343–70.
———. 2015. “Which Came First, People or Pollution? A Review of Theory and Evidence
from Longitudinal Environmental Justice Studies.” Environmental Research Letters
10(12):125011.
Moore-Nall, Anita. 2015. “The Legacy of Uranium Development on or Near Indian Reser-
vations and Health Implications Rekindling Public Awareness.” Geosciences 5(1):15–29.
MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration). 2009. “Coal Refuse Disposal Facilities
and Impounding Structures.” In Engineering and Design Manual: Coal Refuse Disposal
Facilities. Pittsburgh, PA: Mine Safety and Health Administration. Retrieved December
29, 2014 (http://www.msha.gov/Impoundments/DesignManual/Chapter-3.pdf).
Mutz, Kathryn M., Gary C. Bryner, and Douglas S. Kenney, eds. 2002. Justice and Natural
Resources: Concepts, Strategies, and Applications. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Nowak, Pete, Sarah Bowen, and Perry E. Cabot. 2006. “Disproportionality as a Framework
for Linking Social and Biophysical Systems.” Society and Natural Resources 19(2):
153–73.
NRC (National Research Council). Committee on Coal Waste Impoundments. 2002. Coal
Waste Impoundments: Risks, Responses, and Alternatives. Washington, DC: National Acad-
emy Press.
Ogneva-Himmelberger, Yelena and Liyao Huang. 2015. “Spatial Distribution of Uncon-
ventional Gas Wells and Human Populations in the Marcellus Shale in the United
States: Vulnerability Analysis.” Applied Geography 60:165–74.
Pellow, David N. 2000. “Environmental Inequality Formation: Toward a Theory of Envi-
ronmental Injustice.” American Behavioral Scientist 43(4):581–601.
Pellow, David N. and Hollie Nyseth Brehm. 2013. “An Environmental Sociology for the
Twenty-first Century.” Annual Review of Sociology 39(1):229–50.
Perdue, Robert Todd and Gregory Pavela. 2012. “Addictive Economies and Coal Depen-
dency: Methods of Extraction and Socioeconomic Outcomes in West Virginia, 1997–
2009.” Organization and Environment 25(4):368–84.
Plummer, Sarah. 2016. “Wyoming Judge Orders Coal Company to Replace Contaminated
Water.” Beckley Register-Herald, March 4. Retrieved March 7, 2016 (http://www.regis-
ter–herald.com/news/wyoming–judge–orders–coal–company–to–replace–contami-
nated–water/article_f35ba263–5b7f–5b23–8470–f1a3db7ca575.html).
Scott, Rebecca R. 2010. Removing Mountains: Extracting Nature and Identity in the Appalachian
Coalfields. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Scott, Shaunna L., Stephanie McSpirit, Patrick Breheny, and Britteny M. Howell. 2012.
“The Long-Term Effects of a Coal Waste Disaster on Social Trust in Appalachian
Kentucky.” Organization and Environment 25(4):402–18.
Shearer, Christine, Debra Davidson, and Robert Gramling. 2013. “The Double Diversion
of National Energy in a Globalized Era: Offshore Oil, Coal, and Oil Sand Leases.” Pp.
57–72 in William R. Freudenburg, a Life in Social Research, Research in Social Problems and
Public Policy, edited by S. Maret. Bingley, England: Emerald.
Smith, Chad L. 2009. “Economic Deprivation and Racial Segregation: Comparing Super-
fund Sites in Portland, Oregon and Detroit, Michigan.” Social Science Research 38(3):
681–92.
Spielman, Seth E., David Folch, and Nicholas Nagle. 2014. “Patterns and Causes
of Uncertainty in the American Community Survey.” Applied Geography 46:
147–57.
Szasz, Andrew and Michael Meuser. 1997. “Environmental Inequalities: Literature Review
and Proposals for New Directions in Research and Theory.” Current Sociology 45(3):
99–120.
Thompson, Jonathan. 2016. “Silverton’s Gold King Reckoning.” High Country News, May 2.
Retrieved May 28, 2016 (https://www.hcn.org/issues/48.7/silvertons–gold–king–
reckoning).
Tobler, W. R. 1970. “A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region.”
Economic Geography 46(2):234–40.
Todd, John, Samir Doshi, and Anthony McInnis. 2010. “Beyond Coal: A Resilient New
Economy for Appalachia.” Solutions 1(4):45–52.
UCCCRJ (United Church of Christ, Commission for Racial Justice). 1987. Toxic Wastes and
Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics
of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. New York: United Church of Christ.
Retrieved December 15, 2014 (http://www.ucc.org/about–us/archives/pdfs/tox-
wrace87.pdf).
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. “2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3:
Technical Documentation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Retrieved October 14, 2014 (https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf).
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. “Announcing EPA’s Selection of
National Enforcement Initiatives for FY 2014–2016.” Retrieved May 10, 2015 (http://
www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester/courses/Environmental–Enforcement–2014/2014–
2016–nei–announcement.pdf).
Ward, Ken, Jr. 2012a. “Dams Loom Large; Questions Remain, 40 Years after Buffalo Creek
Disaster.” Charleston Gazette-Mail, February 21, p. 1A.
———. 2012b. “Deal Reached in Prenter Coal Slurry Lawsuit.” Charleston Gazette-Mail,
June 12. Retrieved March 15, 2016 (http://www.wvgazettemail.com/News/
201206120119).
Ward, Michael Don and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch. 2008. Spatial Regression Models. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rural Sociology - 2016 - Greenberg - Disproportionality and Resource Based Environmental Inequality An Analysis of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Sociology - 2016 - Greenberg - Disproportionality and Resource Based Environmental Inequality An Analysis of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Sociology 82(1), 2017, pp.

Disproportionality and Resource-Based Environmental

Abstract Environmental hazards created by resource extraction impose

* I thank Drs. Raoul Li

(Erikson 1976). Another failure in 2000 poisoned waterways in Ken-

and environmental costs of resource extraction and production (Freu-

Coal Impoundments in Appalachia

and public pressure . . . forced coal operators to construct storage

administered in two West Virginia counties found that 58 percent of

hazards. This line of research is especially important in regions like

Disproportionality and the Double Diversion Framework

corporate access to offshore oil in the United States is portrayed as nec-

newspapers that were critical of the coal companies. Therefore, Gaventa

economic benefits of coal mining outweigh the environmental costs for

H1: Neighborhoods with higher poverty rates will be closer to

These primary hypotheses are related to the double diversion

H3a: Neighborhoods near past mining activities and in areas

Unlike municipal solid waste, which is often transported to landfills,

Therefore, I expect proximity to coal mining to be highly correlated

H4a: Neighborhoods with greater rural non-farm populations

Because coal companies often construct impoundments on large

Figure 1. Location of Coal Impoundments in Appalachia.

cities and isolated outlying areas of counties (Duncan 1999). Therefore,

Data and Methods

obtaining longitudinal data on both hazardous facilities and

Table 1. Summary Statistics.

2002). The unemployment rate in tracts within the Appalachian study

social marginalization and uneven development (Duncan 1999; Eller

software. The software draws a Euclidean distance radius around the

y5X b1kW n1e

where y is the natural log of the distance to the nearest impoundment,

utilizing the distance-based matrix (W) and the spatial autoregressive

Spatial Regression Results

Table 3. Coefficients from Spatial Error Regression of Tract Proximity

percent decrease in distance to nearest impoundment. However, this

higher levels of mining employment, and (3) be located in a region

(2.109). Poverty (.009) and unemployment (.008) have small standard-

major economic boon. In fact, only 25 of 4,203 tracts in Appalachia

city or town with a population of more than 2,500 or part of a designat-

impoundments. Further, descriptive statistics reveal an unequal balance

neglect numerous at-risk areas. Therefore, environmental justice

You might also like