Meredith Dudley and Sally O'Connor
Center for Environmental Programs
Xavier University of Louisiana
New Orleans, Louisiana
(504) 485-5182

Successful public participation in waste management decisions related to environmental cleanup of the nation's nuclear weapons complex requires that the specific needs and concerns of local populations be addressed. All too often, equitable public participation goals are not met because outreach efforts fail to address the unique needs and concerns of different ethnic populations. Historically excluded from the mainstream environmental movement, ethnic minorities were also assumed to be less concerned about environmental issues. More recent research into the sociodemographic bases of environmental concern has, however, demonstrated that while the salience of environmental issues may vary according to ethnic background, general levels of concern are comparable. Lack of diverse participation in past efforts should therefore not be attributed to a lack of concern. Rather, culturally specific concerns need to be understood and addressed by future outreach efforts in order to enhance broad and equitable stakeholder involvement in radioactive waste management decisions.

To understand better the concerns of ethnically diverse groups, an opinion survey was conducted on residents surrounding the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site (SRS). The survey provided a measure of general environmental concerns and risk perceptions and also addressed more specific attitudes regarding the nearby SRS. This paper analyzes the perceptions of Native American, African American, Asian American, Hispanic, and White respondents regarding: 1) general environmental concerns; 2) threats from technological hazards; 3) specific knowledge about SRS; 4) attitudes regarding the local site; and 5) site-specific risks posed by radioactive waste management options. Ethnicity was a significant factor affecting both general levels of environmental concern and risk perception as well as the salience of particular issues. Specific knowledge about the site, however, significantly mediated local perceptions of risk posed by SRS. Individuals from ethnic groups that felt most threatened by nuclear facilities and radioactive waste management options in general appeared to be the least concerned or informed about the association of these risks with the nearby facility. These findings indicate that an important step towards more equitable involvement in radioactive waste management decisions is the increased accessibility, both physical availability and readability, of site-specific information, tailored to the unique needs and concerns of different ethnic populations.

The legacy of environmental contamination left in the wake of nuclear weapons production poses new challenges requiring greater citizen involvement than any previous wartime effort. By the late 1980s, as the Cold War receded, the missions of various installations throughout the Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear weapons complex shifted from weapons production to environmental cleanup. The complicated tasks of environmental restoration and waste management pose both technical and institutional challenges, which necessitate unprecedented levels of openness and communication among all affected stakeholders. According to the DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM), "the most vexing problems cannot be addressed solely by science but will require a broad-based and informed public debate" (DOE, 1996: 86).

Lasting and successful decisions regarding waste management in the nation's nuclear weapons complex require meaningful participation of all impacted communities. Traditional outreach efforts have failed to address the unique needs and concerns of diverse populations. As a result, ethnic groups that bear a disproportionate burden of risks posed by waste management activities because of their "downwind" or "downgradient" location from nearby facilities have not historically participated in public meetings held at these sites (CERE, 1995). Our previous study (CERE, 1995) using a proactive outreach approach to gathering public input demonstrated, however, that these ethnic and economically disadvantaged groups are as concerned as those actively participating in public meetings.

The purpose of this study is to examine both general environmental concerns and site-specific risk perceptions among different ethnic groups potentially affected by environmental restoration and waste management activities at the Savannah River Site (SRS), located in western South Carolina. Drawing from a public opinion survey of local residents, this study focuses on the perceptions of Native American, African American, Asian American, Hispanic, and White respondents regarding: 1) general concerns about the environment, 2) general environmental threats, 3) specific knowledge about DOE and SRS, 4) attitudes regarding the local site, and 5) site-specific risks posed by waste management options. These culturally specific concerns must be understood and addressed by future outreach efforts in order to enhance broad and equitable stakeholder involvement in radioactive waste management decisions. Furthermore, sound public policy dictates that the views and concerns of ethnically diverse groups be understood and recognized.

Traditionally excluded from the organization and general interests of the mainstream environmental movement, ethnic minorities were assumed to be less concerned about environmental issues because of more pressing social and economic concerns (Baugh, 1991; Bullard & Wright, 1987; Mohai, 1990; Taylor, 1989). This belief was largely based on the "economic contingency hypothesis," which assumes that environmental concerns are a luxury that can only be afforded after more basic needs are met (Jones & Carter, 1994). Alternative hypotheses predict, however, that disadvantaged ethnic populations which have been disproportionately exposed to environmental health risks should be more concerned about environmental issues, especially local hazards (Adeola, 1994; Arp & Kenny, 1996; Baugh, 1991). The emergence of the environmental justice movement has served to highlight local struggles for equity in environmental quality (Taylor, 1993).

More recent research into the sociodemographic bases of environmental concern has demonstrated that ethnic minorities are concerned about a broad range of environmental issues, and that general levels of environmental concern are comparable (e.g., Caron, 1989; Jones & Carter, 1994; Mohai, 1990). Risk perceptions and the salience of specific environmental issues, however, often vary according to ethnic background. Environmental risks not only threaten personal health and safety, but socialized values and beliefs that reflect different cultural norms (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982; Vaughan, 1995; Vaughan & Nordenstam, 1991). Ethnic groups that share common norms and beliefs are therefore expected to differ from each other in the perceived salience of particular environmental concerns and interpretation of risk. These variances should not only be reflected between white and non-white populations, but among all ethnic groups. As such, this study has not aggregated minority populations, and has instead examined the perceptions of five separate ethnic groups: Native American, African American, Asian American, Hispanic, and White.

In 1996, Xavier University's Consortium for Environmental Risk Evaluation (CERE) sponsored a "public concerns" telephone survey of residents in seven counties outlying the Savannah River Site: Barnwell (SC), Allendale (SC), Burke (GA), Richmond (GA), Screven (GA), Bamberg (SC), and Aiken (SC). Economically disadvantaged and ethnic communities within these selected counties were targeted using a directory-listed random sample. Telephone interviews were conducted between August and September 1996 by a team of students at Savannah State University's Survey Research Center. A total of 602 interviews were completed at a refusal ratio of 4:1. Forty-five percent of the respondents were White, twenty-seven percent African American, ten percent Asian American, eight percent Native American, and eight percent Hispanic-allowing for analysis of response according to ethnic background. The survey instrument consisted of twenty questions structured in a standard multiple-choice format and was based on a previous focus group study. Five question categories were chosen for analysis and presentation in this paper.

Survey participants were asked how concerned they were about nine separate environmental indicators: air quality, drinking water, pesticides and fertilizers, game hunted or eaten, fish caught or eaten, water pollution, soil contamination, endangered species, and solid waste, including illegal dumping of hazardous waste. Responses were measured on a five-point scale from "1," indicating "not at all concerned" to "5," for "very concerned." Individual responses to each environmental indicator were summed to produce a cumulative score, or scale used to measure general environmental concern levels. Cumulative environmental concern scores ranged from 9 to 45, higher scores indicating greater overall levels of expressed concern about the environment.

Respondents were likewise asked on a five point scale from "1," indicating "no threat" to "5," designating "great threat" how much of a risk six potential technological hazards posed to personal health and safety: an oil refinery, nuclear power plant, chemical/ hazardous waste transportation, waste tire dump, landfill, and incinerator. Individual responses to each potential hazard were summed to produce a cumulative score used to measure general perceptions of threat. Cumulative environmental threat scores ranged from 6 to 30, higher scores indicating greater perceived threat from potential technological hazards.

Self-assessed levels of knowledge about DOE activities, including the SRS, were scored on a five-point scale from "1," for "nothing at all" to " 5," indicating the respondent knew "a lot" about the site. Respondents who claimed no knowledge about SRS were not asked remaining site-specific questions, including the next two question categories.

Two questions were asked to elicit perceptions about local economic benefits and health and safety costs of the site. Participants responded on a three-point scale whether they "generally agree" "1," are "not sure" "2," or "generally disagree" "3," that (a) the site provides jobs so it should remain open, and (b) the site poses a danger to personal health and safety.

Finally, participants were asked on a five-point scale from "1," indicating "no threat" to "5" for "great threat" how much of a risk four waste management activities posed to personal health and safety: transporting radioactive materials on local highways and railways; storing radioactive materials on site; treating radioactive materials on site; and, receiving radioactive materials from other sites or countries. In order to assess general risk perceptions about waste management activities, individual responses to each option were also aggregated into a multiple-item measure, or additive scale. Cumulative perceived risk scores ranged from 4 to 20, higher scores indicating greater perceived threat posed by waste management activities.

We examined the effects of ethnicity on each of the five categories of questions with the prediction that ethnic affiliation would have a significant impact on environmental concern and risk perception. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H calculations were used to test the significance of differences between mean scores for categories of the independent variable (ethnicity), except where indicated otherwise. Potential covariates age, education, income, length of residence and gender were controlled for within General Factorial Multiple Analysis of Variance, using Unique Sum of Squares method.

General levels of environmental concern were hypothesized to be comparable across ethnic groups; or, if significant differences did emerge, ethnic minorities were not expected to express less general concern about the environment than White respondents. Ethnicity was, in fact, an extremely significant predictor of general environmental concern, as measured by mean cumulative environmental concern scores (C ²=28.23, df=4, p<.001). Furthermore, the relationship between ethnicity and environmental concern remained significant (F=4.64, df=4, p<.01) when controlling for potential covariates. African Americans expressed the highest mean levels of environmental concern (M=37.71, n=161, sd=7.70), followed by Native American (M=34.65, n=46, sd=9.36) and Hispanic (M=34.40, n=50, sd=9.35) respondents. All ethnic groups did express moderate levels of environmental concern, although African American respondents demonstrated significantly higher levels of concern than White (M=33.58, n=266, sd=8.76) or Asian (M=33.33, n=58, sd=10.52) respondents, as confirmed by Tukey HSD post hoc tests (p<.05). This relationship was in the predicted direction with the observation that Asian patterns of response were quite different, justifying the disaggregation of non-white ethnic groups.

The salience of particular environmental issues was, however, expected to differ significantly among the five ethnic groups. Mean responses for each of the nine environmental indicators were calculated and ranked by ethnic group in order to assess the relevance of particular issues (Table I). Ethnicity was a statistically significant predictor (p<.05) of mean concern levels for all environmental indicators except river contamination and solid waste, even when controlling for potential covariates. Furthermore, although the five ethnic groups responded similarly in terms of the least salient environmental concerns, fish and game, there were substantial differences in the ranking of the most important ones. African American and Hispanic respondents expressed the greatest concern about drinking water and air quality, Native American and White respondents were most concerned about river contamination, and Asian respondents were equally concerned about water quality and solid waste disposal. Ethnic affiliation was therefore significantly related to the salience of particular environmental concerns. African Americans, however, consistently expressed the highest mean concern levelsfor all nine environmental indicators, and varied the least in their response.

Perceptions of threat from potential technological hazards were also hypothesized to vary according to ethnic group. Ethnicity was a significant predictor of threat perceptions, as measured by mean cumulative personal threat scores (C ²=14.99, df=4, p<.01). Furthermore, the relationship between ethnicity and perceptions of threat remained significant (F=2.38, df=4, p<.05) when controlling for potential covariates. African Americans expressed the highest levels of perceived threat posed by these technological hazards (M=22.20, n=160, sd=6.37), followed closely by Hispanic (M=21.42, n=50, sd=6.80) and then Native American (M=20.41, n=46, sd=7.74) respondents. White (M=19.93, n=267, sd=6.67) and Asian (M=19.03, n=58, sd=7.73) respondents perceived the least amount of cumulative threat from nuclear power plants, hazardous waste transportation, landfills, waste tire dumps, incinerators, and oil refineries. The most significant differences emerged between African American and White and Asian respondents (Tukey HSD, p<.05).

Mean responses for each potential hazard were also calculated and ranked by ethnic group in order to assess differences in the perception of specific threats (Table II). Ethnicity was not a statistically valid predictor (p>.05) of perceptions of threat posed by waste tire dumps, landfills, or incinerators, which were ranked relatively low by all ethnic groups except Native Americans. Perceptions of threat posed by nuclear power plants (C ²=23.81, df=4, p<.001) and hazardous waste transportation (C ²=14.49, df=4, p<.01) were, however, statistically correlated with ethnicity, even when controlling for potential covariates (F=2.51, df=4, p<.05; F=3.57, df=4, p<.01). Although African American, Native American, and Hispanic respondents were more likely to feel threatened by all six technological hazards, nuclear power plants, followed by hazardous waste transportation were perceived as posing the greatest threats. Native American respondents demonstrated an exception by ranking transportation as a relatively low threat to personal health and safety. Local hazardous waste transportation was, however, ranked by Asian and White respondents as posing the greatest threat, followed by nuclear power plants, although mean perceptions of threat were still lower than those expressed by African American and Hispanic respondents. While substantial differences emerged in the ranking of less salient threats, all five ethnic groups responded similarly in their perception of the most consequential ones. The relative importance assigned by all ethnic groups to threats posed by nuclear technologies and local transportation of hazardous waste should have significant implications for communicating waste management risks at SRS.

Variable access to information about Department of Energy activities at SRS were expected to result in different levels of site-specific knowledge among the five ethnic groups. Ethnicity was in fact a statistically significant predictor of knowledge levels (C ²=19.60, df=4, p<.01), even when controlling for potential covariates (F=3.54, df=4, p<.01). The highest mean levels of knowledge were expressed by Native American (M=2.18, n=44, sd=1.53), White (M=2.11, n=258, sd=1.28) and Asian (M=1.93, n=58, sd=1,44) respondents, while African American (M=1.71, n=155, sd=1.10) and Hispanic (M=1.62, n=50, sd=1,24) respondents claimed to know much less about DOE activities, including the SRS. Perhaps more telling is the percentage of individuals who claimed to know "nothing" about the local facility. A substantial finding was that the majority of all respondents (55.0%) claimed to have no knowledge about activities at the SRS. Lack of information concerning the site was especially pronounced among Hispanic respondents, 74.0% of whom claimed to know "nothing" about SRS, as well as among African American and Asian respondents, 63.2% and 63.8% of whom claimed no knowledge. These findings are not only significant to the overall interpretation of this study, they also directly affect analysis of remaining questionnaire items since individuals claiming to "know nothing" were excluded from responding to further questions about the facility, including the next two questions analyzed.

Attitudes concerning local economic benefits and health and safety threats posed by the Savannah River Site were predicted to vary by ethnic group in the same manner as general environmental concerns and risk perceptions. Given the economic contingency hypothesis, ethnic groups with significantly lower average incomes might be expected to support the statement that the "SRS provides jobs so it should remain open." However, ethnicity, income, and previous employment at the site were not statistically correlated with support for this statement. In fact, the majority of all respondents, whether they had worked at the site (68.2%), or not (76.6%) disagreed that the site should remain open to provide jobs. Furthermore, individuals whose friends or relatives had worked at the site were significantly more likely to disagree that the site should remain open to provide jobs (C ²=8.50, df=2, p<.05).* Together, these findings appear to reject the assumption that lower income and minority groups should be more concerned about the economic benefits provided by the site than by potential environmental, health, and safety hazards.

The next statement directly addressed concern about the health and safety threats posed by the facility. It was hypothesized that because minority populations, African Americans in particular, expressed increased risk perceptions regarding nuclear power facilities in general, they might also perceive greater health and safety costs associated with the nearby SRS. Contrary to expectations, ethnicity was not a statistically valid predictor of support for the statement that "SRS poses a danger to personal health and safety." The majority of all respondents (52.8%) generally agreed with this statement. Furthermore, while Hispanic (61.5%) and Native American (57.1%) respondents were more likely than White (54.9%) and Asian (52.4%) respondents to agree, African Americans were the least likely to agree (43.9%) and the most likely to disagree (43.9%) that the site poses a danger to personal health and safety.

Interestingly, respondents, primarily African Americans, who perceived nuclear power plants as posing a "great threat" to personal health and safety (question 2) were the most likely to disagree that the SRS poses similar dangers (C ²=66.61, df=8 p<.001). Respondents who claimed that nuclear power plants pose "no threat" were alternatively the most likely to agree that SRS poses a danger to personal health and safety. This unpredicted pattern of response may be partially explained by different levels of knowledge about the local facility. The relationship between site-specific knowledge and perceptions of danger posed by SRS was in fact significant (C ²=8.75, df=3, p<.05), although not in the expected direction. Increased knowledge about the site tended to generate, rather than alleviate, perceptions of risk. Respondents claiming to know "a lot" about the site were the most likely to agree that SRS poses a danger to personal health and safety (Figure 1), and the least likely to disagree or remain undecided. Individuals who had worked at SRS were also significantly more likely to agree that the site poses a danger than respondents who had never worked at the site (C ²=12.871, df=2, p<.01). It therefore appears that exposure to, or access to information about SRS acts to increase rather than decrease perceptions of personal risk. Where general environmental concerns and risk perceptions among particular ethnic groups did not translate into specific concern about SRS, it could reflect a lack of site-specific knowledge.

Specific perceptions of risk posed by four environmental cleanup and hazardous waste management options at SRS were likewise expected to vary by ethnic group. Ethnicity was in fact a statistically significant predictor of risk perceptions, as measured by mean cumulative perceived risk scores (C ²=15.92, df=4, p<.01), even when controlling for potential covariates (F=2.56, df=4, p<.05). While respondents from all ethnic groups perceived moderate levels of threat, African Americans (M=16.63, n=57, sd=4.22) expressed significantly greater risk perceptions regarding radioactive waste management activities. Hispanic (M=13.46, n=13, sd=6.60) and Native American (M=13.29, n=21, sd=6.17) respondents, however, expressed lower mean levels of perceived risk than Asian (M=13.52, n=21, sd=5.21) or White (M=13.57, n=142, sd=5.44) respondents. The most statistically significant differences in mean scores arose between African American and White respondents (Tukey HSD, p<.01).

Ethnicity was also a significant predictor (p<.05) of perceptions of threat posed by each of the four waste management activities, transporting, storing, treating and receiving (Table III). When controlling for other variables, however, ethnicity only remained a statistically significant predictor of risk perceptions regarding the treatment of hazardous waste (F=2.46, df=4, p<.05). African Americans consistently expressed the highest mean risk perceptions for all four radioactive waste management options, and perceived receiving radioactive materials from other sites or countries as the most risky activity, followed by on site treatment of radioactive wastes. In fact, receiving radioactive materials from external sources was perceived as the most risky activity by all ethnic groups except among Hispanic respondents, who ranked this activity as posing the least serious threat to personal health and safety. Instead, Hispanic respondents perceived local transportation of radioactive materials as posing the most serious threat, followed by on site storage and treatment of radioactive waste. Transporting radioactive waste was also considered a serious threat by Native American respondents, who in turn felt much less threatened by storage and treatment options. Mean profiles of risk perceptions by Asian and White respondents were remarkably similar. Transportation, storage and treatment options were perceived to pose only little to moderate threat, whereas the reception of external radioactive materials was considered by Asian and White respondents to be a substantially more threatening activity.

Highest mean perceived waste management risk in bold
* Kruskal-Wallis H tests significant at .05 level

Both overall intensity of perceived risk from radioactive management activities and the perceived threat of each individual activity (transporting, storing, treating, and receiving) differed significantly by ethnic group-although not in the same direction as perceptions of general danger posed by SRS. In order to understand this apparent discrepancy, correlations between general and specific risk perceptions need to be examined for the site. Perceptions of risk posed by specific radioactive waste management options were significantly and positively correlated with perceptions of threat from general nuclear facilities (r=.562, p<.001). Respondents expressing greater perceptions of threat from nuclear power plants likewise perceived greater risk associated with radioactive waste management options for the site (M ²=79.61, df=4, p<.001) (Figure 2). These same respondents were, however, typically less concerned about general danger posed by the site. In other words, individuals, primarily African Americans, who did not feel that SRS poses a danger to their health and safety were significantly more likely to feel threatened by specific radioactive waste management options for the site (C ²=54.35, df=2, p<.001). Alternatively, respondents who agreed that SRS poses a danger to personal health and safety perceived lower levels of cumulative threat from waste management activities than respondents who disagreed (Figure 3).

Again, these unpredicted patterns of response may be better understood through the mediating effect of knowledge about the site. Individuals claiming to know "a lot" about SRS perceived specific waste management activities as posing far less of a threat than did individuals claiming to have less knowledge about the site (M ²=28.41, df=3, p<.001) (Figure 4). Knowledge about the site was therefore negatively related to perceptions of risk posed by radioactive waste management activities. This finding is especially interesting given the observation that knowledge about the site was also correlated with general perceptions of danger posed by SRS-although not in the same direction. Respondents who claimed more knowledge about SRS were more likely to feel the site poses a danger to personal health and safety, but less likely to feel threatened by specific waste management activities (compare Figures 1 & 4). On the other hand, individuals who knew less about the site typically felt more threatened both by general nuclear power facilities and specific radioactive waste management options, although these concerns were not translated into general perceptions of danger posed by SRS. The ordering of questions may have facilitated these patterns of response. General perceptions of threat posed by SRS were elicited before specific radioactive waste management activities were mentioned. At the time the first question was asked, respondents who knew less about the site may not, therefore, have connected their own concerns about nuclear issues with the nearby facility.

Within this study, ethnicity appeared to be a significant factor affecting both general and site-specific environmental concerns and risk perceptions. In keeping with more recent findings regarding the sociodemographic basis of environmental concern (e.g. Jones & Carter, 1994), African American, Native American and Hispanic respondents demonstrated greater general levels of concern about the ambient environment than White respondents. Asian respondents, on the other hand, expressed relatively lower levels of environmental concern. This finding highlights the need to disaggregate non-white ethnic groups for more meaningful analysis and interpretation. The importance of particular environmental concerns also varied by ethnic group, with heightened concern about air and drinking water quality, river contamination, and solid waste disposal having the most obvious implications for communication of site-specific risks. African American, Hispanic and Native American respondents also expressed heightened risk perceptions posed by technological hazards. Although substantial differences emerged in perceptions of less serious threats, nuclear power facilities and the transportation of hazardous materials were generally ranked as posing the greatest risks to personal health and safety.

The translation of general environmental concerns and risk perceptions into attitudes concerning the local Savannah River Site was, however, mediated by site-specific knowledge. While the majority of all respondents claimed to have no knowledge about activities at the site, Hispanic and African American respondents were particularly affected by lack of information. Overall relationships between findings suggest that individuals from ethnic groups expressing the greatest concern about risks from general nuclear facilities are also extremely concerned about risks posed by specific radioactive waste management activities. Ironically, individuals who felt the most threatened by both general nuclear facilities and specific radioactive waste management activities appeared to be the least concerned or informed about the association of these risks with the local and more familiar SRS. Individuals who knew more about the site were, alternatively, more concerned about general dangers posed by the site, but appeared less likely to feel these dangers emanated from specific radioactive waste management options (such as transporting, storing, treating, or receiving radioactive wastes). Although African American respondents were the least likely to agree that SRS poses a personal danger, they were more likely to feel threatened by specific waste management activities for the site. Of the specific radioactive waste management activities proposed for the site, individuals other than Hispanics generally perceived receiving radioactive wastes from external sources as posing the greatest risk to personal health and safety. This finding may reflect perceptions of fairness and indicate a strong desire by local residents that SRS not become a dumping ground for the rest of the country or world.

Perhaps the most important step towards more equitable involvement in radioactive waste management decisions at nearby facilities is the generation of accessible information, both physical availability and readability, tailored to the specific needs and concerns of different ethnic communities. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide analysis of culturally appropriate risk communication, preliminary findings indicate that such communication needs to directly address the environmental, health, and safety costs of different waste management options, rather than merely focusing on economic benefits. This appears to be true even, or especially, when addressing ethnic groups with lower average incomes. Furthermore, information about the site cannot be generated with the sole intention of alleviating seemingly 'irrational' risk perceptions among the public, and may alternatively act to stimulate concern about threats posed by more familiar local facilities. Increased knowledge among all stakeholders will, however, help forge mutual communication networks in which more informed discussion about specific radioactive waste management options can begin to take place.

1. DOE. Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (1996).
2. CERE. CERE Interim Public Concerns Report. New Orleans, LA: Xavier University.(1995).
3. CERE. CERE Interim Public Concerns Report. New Orleans, LA: Xavier University.(1995).
4. J.A. Baugh, "African Americans and the Environment," Policy Studies Journal, 19(2): 182-191 (1991).
5. R.D. Bullard and B.H. Wright, "Blacks and the Environment," Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 14(1): 165-184 (1987).
6. P. Mohai, "Black Environmentalism," Social Science Quarterly, 71(4): 744-765 (1990).
7. D.E. Taylor, "Blacks and the Environment: Toward an Explanation of the Concern and Action Gap Between Blacks and Whites," Environment and Behavior, 21(2): 175-205 (1989).
8. R. Jones and L. Carter, "Concern for the Environment among Black Americans: An Assessment of Common Assumptions," Social Science Quarterly, 75(3): 560-579 (1994).
9. F. Adeola, "Environmental Hazards, Health, and Racial Inequity in Hazardous Waste Distribution," Environment and Behavior, 26(1): 99-126 (1994).
10. W. Arp and C. Kenny, "Black Environmentalism in the Local Community Context," Environment and Behavior, 28(3): 267-282 (1996).
11. J.A. Baugh, "African Americans and the Environment," Policy Studies Journal, 19(2): 182-191 (1991).
12. D.E. Taylor, "The Environmental Justice Movement: No Shortage of Minority Volunteers," EPA Journal, 18: 23-25 (1993).
13. J.A. Caron, "Environmental Perspectives of Blacks: Acceptance of the 'New Environmental Paradigm'," Journal of Environmental Education, 20: 21-26 (1989).
14. R. Jones and L. Carter, "Concern for the Environment among Black Americans: An Assessment of Common Assumptions," Social Science Quarterly, 75(3): 560-579 (1994).
15. P. Mohai, "Black Environmentalism," Social Science Quarterly, 71(4): 744-65 (1990).
16. M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers, University of California Press: Berkeley (1982).
17. E. Vaughan, "The Significance of Socioeconomic and Ethnic Diversity for the Risk Communication Process," Risk Analysis, 15(2): 169-80 (1995).
18. E. Vaughan and B. Nordenstam, "The Perception of Environmental Risks Among Ethnically Diverse Groups," Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1): 29-60 (1991).
19. R. Jones and L. Carter, "Concern for the Environment among Black Americans: An Assessment of Common Assumptions," Social Science Quarterly, 75(3): 560-579 (1994).

* Pearson chi-square tests of significance were used for this question

BACK