Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Ludwig, Sandra / Schmitz, Hendrik

Ed. by Barigozzi, Francesca / Brunner, Johann / Fleck, Robert / Jürges, Hendrik / Mastrobuoni, Giovanni / Mendola, Mariapia / Requate, Till / de Vries, Frans / Wenzel, Tobias


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.520
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.556

CiteScore 2018: 0.54

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.356
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.394

Online
ISSN
1935-1682
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 9, Issue 1

Issues

Volume 20 (2020)

Volume 6 (2006)

Volume 4 (2004)

Volume 2 (2002)

Volume 1 (2001)

Effects of Socio-Economic and Input-Related Factors on Polluting Plants' Location Decisions

Ann Wolverton
Published Online: 2009-03-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2083

Abstract

Many environmental justice studies argue that firms choose to locate waste sites or polluting plants disproportionately in minority or poor communities. However, it is not uncommon for these studies to match site or plant location to contemporaneous socioeconomic characteristics instead of to characteristics at the time of siting. While this may provide important information on disproportionate impacts currently faced by these communities, it does not describe the relationship at the time of siting. Also, variables that are important to a plant's location decision – i.e., production and transportation costs – are often not included. Without controlling for such variables, it is difficult to evaluate the relative importance of socioeconomic characteristics in a firm's initial location decision. This paper examines the role of community socioeconomic characteristics at the time of siting in the location decisions of manufacturing plants while controlling for other location-relevant factors such as input costs.When plant location is matched to current socioeconomic characteristics, results are consistent with what the environmental justice literature predicts: race is significant and positively related to plant location, while income is significant and negatively related to plant location. When plant location is matched to socioeconomic characteristics at the time of siting, empirical results suggest that race is no longer significant, though income is still significant and negatively related to plant location. Poverty rates are sometimes significant but act as a deterrent to plant location. Variables traditionally considered in the firm location literature – such as land and labor costs, the quality of labor, and distance to rail – are significant. The presence of pre-existing TRI plants in a neighborhood and average plant size are also significant.

Keywords: environmental justice; firm location; distributional effects

About the article

Published Online: 2009-03-27


Citation Information: The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, Volume 9, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 1935-1682, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2083.

Export Citation

©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[3]
Hilary A. Sigman and Sarah L. Stafford
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010
[5]
Spencer Banzhaf, Lala Ma, and Christopher Timmins
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2019, Volume 33, Number 1, Page 185
[7]
Heather E. Campbell, Yushim Kim, and Adam Eckerd
Urban Affairs Review, 2014, Volume 50, Number 4, Page 521
[8]
Sirisha C. Naidu, Panayiotis T. Manolakos, and Thomas E. Hopkins
Review of Radical Political Economics, 2013, Volume 45, Number 3, Page 384
[9]
Dakshina G. De Silva, Timothy P. Hubbard, and Anita R. Schiller
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2016, Volume 98, Number 3, Page 881
[10]
Adam Eckerd and Andrew G. Keeler
Policy Sciences, 2012, Volume 45, Number 4, Page 293
[11]
[12]
Yushim Kim, Heather Campbell, and Adam Eckerd
Social Science Quarterly, 2014, Volume 95, Number 1, Page 40
[13]
Shrawantee Saha and Robert D. Mohr
Ecological Economics, 2013, Volume 93, Page 284
[14]
Michael Ash, James K. Boyce, Grace Chang, and Helen Scharber
Social Science Quarterly, 2013, Volume 94, Number 3, Page 616
[15]
Donna Ramirez Harrington
Resource and Energy Economics, 2012, Volume 34, Number 3, Page 349
[16]
DONNA RAMIREZ HARRINGTON
Contemporary Economic Policy, 2013, Volume 31, Number 2, Page 255

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in