Cited by 126Environmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementDisaster Management and Resilience

Environmental injustice and flood risk: a conceptual model and case comparison of metropolitan Miami and Houston, USA

Open access
Collins, Timothy W., Grineski, Sara E., Chakraborty, Jayajit·2018·Regional Environmental Change

Abstract

This article outlines a conceptual model and comparatively applies it to results from environmental justice (EJ) studies of flood risk in the Miami, Florida, and Houston, Texas, metropolitan areas. In contrast to most EJ studies of air pollution, which have found that socially-vulnerable groups experience disproportionate risk, distributive EJ studies of flooding reveal inconsistent findings regarding the relationship between social vulnerability and flood exposure. Counterintuitively (from a conventional EJ perspective), some pre-flood EJ studies have found that socially-advantaged people experience the highest residential exposure to flood risks. To integrate those anomalous findings within an EJ perspective, our conceptual model focuses on (1) the differential capacities of social groups to deploy/access protective resources for reducing the threat of loss, even while they reside amid flood-prone environments, and (2) both flood hazards and water-based benefits. Application of this model in Miami reveals that environmental injustices materialize as socially-privileged groups expose themselves to residential flood risks by seeking coastal amenities, as the costs of mitigating risks are conveyed to the broader public; in the process, socially-vulnerable residents are relegated to areas with air pollution and/or inland flood risks, where they experience constrained access to protective resources and coastal amenities. Findings from Houston better align with conventional EJ expectations-with flood zones disproportionately inhabited by socially-vulnerable people-because many coastal lands there are used by petrochemical industries, which produce major residential-environmental disamenities. Results underscore the need to consider protective resources and locational benefits in future empirical research on the EJ implications of flood hazards.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10113-017-1121-9

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In NYC, densely developed neighborhoods with masonry and steel apartment buildings have higher overnight minimum outdoor temperatures, but the same structures can reduce heat exposure by gaining heat more slowly, being more energy efficient, having less exposure to outdoor heat or cold due to adjacent unit walls, and helping to shade streets and sidewalks.

    “Although densely developed neighborhoods with masonry and steel apartment buildings do have higher overnight minimum outdoor temperatures, 183 the same structures can reduce heat exposure in several ways: by gaining heat more slowly 184 ; by being more energy efficient and having lower energy costs than single-family homes 185 ; by having less exposure to outdoor heat or cold due to adjacent unit”

    From NPCC4: Advancing climate justice in climate adaptation strategies for New York City (2024) · cites this paper as [185]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Collins, T. W., Grineski, S. E., & Chakraborty, J.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at El Paso (US)
Corresponding author
Collins, Timothy W.
Venue
Regional Environmental Change
Published
2017-02-13
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
311-323
ISSN
  • 1436-378X (ISSN-L)
  • 1436-3798
OpenAlex
W2588609895
Cited by
126
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
15.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Regional Environmental Change (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (1129984, 1536113)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Flood Risk Assessment and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
Keywords
environmental justice, flood risk, social vulnerability, protective resources, coastal amenities, petrochemical industry, air pollution, Miami metropolitan area, Houston metropolitan area, conceptual model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review