The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Racial Inequality in the Distribution of Hazardous Waste: A National-Level Reassessment
Abstract
National-level studies examining racial disparities around hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities have been very influential in defining the academic and political debates about the existence and importance of “environmental injustice.” However, these studies tend to employ methods that fail to adequately control for proximity between environmentally hazardous sites and nearby residential populations. By using GIS and applying methods increasingly used in environmental inequality research that better control for proximity, we conduct a comprehensive reassessment of racial inequality in the distribution of the nation's hazardous waste facilities. We compare the magnitude of racial disparities found with those of prior studies and test competing racial, economic, and sociopolitical explanations for why such disparities exist. We find that the magnitude of racial disparities around hazardous waste facilities is much greater than what previous national studies have reported. We also find these disparities persist even when controlling for economic and sociopolitical variables, suggesting that factors uniquely associated with race, such as racial targeting, housing discrimination, or other race-related factors are associated with the location of the nation's hazardous waste facilities. We further conclude that the more recent methods for controlling for proximity yield more consistent and definitive results than those used previously, and therefore argue for their wider utilization in environmental inequality research.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The significance of socioeconomic status in explaining the racial gap in chronic health conditions
Hayward, M. D., Miles, T. P., Crimmins, E. M., & Yang, Y. (2000) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657519 · Cited by 466
Cited by
Parks and People: An Environmental Justice Inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland
Boone, C. G., Buckley, G. L., Grove, J. M., & Sister, C. (2009) · Annals of the Association of American Geographers · doi:10.1080/00045600903102949 · Cited by 828
Stoiber, T., Evans, S., & Naidenko, O. V. (2020) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127659 · Cited by 262
Pope, R., Wu, J., & Boone, C. (2016) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0741-z · Cited by 54
Conceptualizing the Carceral Turn: Neoliberalism, Racism, and Violation
De Lissovoy, N. (2013) · Critical Sociology · doi:10.1177/0896920512452162 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Mohai, P., & Saha, R.
- Venue
- Social Problems
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-08
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 343-370
- ISSN
- 0037-7791 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-8533
- OpenAlex
- W2161208898
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 35.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Racial Inequality in the Distribution of Hazardous Waste: A National-Level Reassessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1525/sp.2007.54.3.343
- The paper
- Mohai, P., & Saha, R. (2007). Racial Inequality in the Distribution of Hazardous Waste: A National-Level Reassessment. Social Problems. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2007.54.3.343
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.