Cited by 44Environmental Justice and Health DisparitiesUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesUrban Planning and Governance

North Carolina [Un]incorporated: Place, Race, and Local Environmental Inequity

Purifoy, Danielle M.·2021·American Behavioral Scientist

Abstract

Research linking municipal underbounding to racialized environmental inequality suggests that understanding the built environmental outcomes of municipal annexation or incorporation may add an important dimension to scholarship on environmental justice and critical race theory. This article explores whether white, black, and Latinx populations are likely to receive the same built environmental benefits from municipal incorporation. I study the distribution and proximity of built amenities and disamenities across white, black, and Latinx populations in incorporated municipalities and unincorporated communities in North Carolina—a state with ongoing controversies about who benefits from municipal jurisdiction. To the extent that municipalities are associated with built environmental amenities, I find that block groups with high white populations are the primary beneficiaries. By contrast, environmental disamenities are distributed disproportionately in communities with higher black and Latinx populations regardless of municipal incorporation. These findings suggest that histories of racialized municipal exclusion are an additional layer of already overdetermined environmental racism, such that municipal inclusion—primarily through annexation of excluded black and Latinx populations—may do little to alter the existing inequities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0002764219859645

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • When lack of regulation is combined with ditches' capacity to carry harmful pollutants and pathogens, whose load is typically elevated, often deliberately concentrated, in areas of high poverty, artificial channels become hotspots for environmental injustice and exploitation.

    “When this lack of regulation is combined with their capacity to carry harmful pollutants and pathogens, whose load is typically elevated, often deliberately concentrated, in areas of high poverty 90 , then artificial channels become hotspots for environmental injustice and exploitation 13,91,92 .”

    From Lines in the landscape (2025) · cites this paper as [91]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Purifoy, D. M.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Purifoy, Danielle M.
Venue
American Behavioral Scientist
Published
2019-07-17
Volume
65
Issue
8
Pages
1072-1103
ISSN
  • 0002-7642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3381
OpenAlex
W4237398029
Cited by
44
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
6.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Behavioral Scientist (publishedVersion)
Funders
u.s. environmental protection agency
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Planning and Governance
Keywords
municipal incorporation, municipal annexation, environmental justice, environmental racism, racial disparities, environmental disamenities, unincorporated communities, critical race theory, racial exclusion, North Carolina

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