1. Environmental Inequality within US Communities Containing Coal and Nuclear Power Plants Michael A. Long and Sarah Kosmicki Oklahoma State University

2. Electricity in the US The US consumed approximately 3,856 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2011 (USEIA, 2012). Over 60 percent of US electricity is produced from coal and nuclear power. – Both often involve environmentally destructive acts (e.g. mountaintop removal mining, release of nitrous and sulfur dioxide, mining of uranium, etc.)

3. Environmental Inequality Research suggests that poor and minority communities are more likely to live in US coal fields and suffer negative impacts associated with mountaintop removal mining (Hendryx 2011; Evans 2010; McGinley 2004). Similarly, research has shown that poor and minority communities are disproportionately impacted by uranium mining and nuclear waste storage sites (Brugge and Goble 2002; Malin and Petrzelka 2010; Markstrom and Charley 2003; Taliman 1992) Research examining the impacts of living near electricity generating power plants is scarce.

4. Research Questions Are minority populations more likely to live near a coal-fired or nuclear power plant? Are poor populations more likely to live near a coal-fired or nuclear power plant? Are children more likely to live near a coal- fired or nuclear power plant?

5. Theoretical Perspectives Risk society – with increasing modernization there follows an increase in the number of accompanying risks. Green criminology and the treadmill of production/crime. Environmental justice

6. Methods 50 percent areal containment method employed. 10 mile buffer zone around coal-fired and nuclear power plants drawn with ARC Map (GIS). Qualifying tracks determined by comparing the size of the original tract to the size of the clipped tract fragment. Census tracts with half of their area falling within a buffer zone were labeled as coal host, nuclear host or both host.

7. Data 2010 US census data Dependent Variable = Tract type (coal host, nuclear host, both host or non-host) Independent Variables – % minority – Median household income – % below poverty line – % children Control Variables – Population density – % employed in the utilities sector – % with a bachelors degree – Region of country

8. Coal-fired power plants with buffers

9. Nuclear power plant with buffers

10. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent Variables. Independent Variables MeanSDMinMax Description Minorities36.0730.120100Percent Population Minorities Median Income55,506.3026,885.805,000249,194Median Household Income Poverty11.3811.150100 Percent Families Living Below Poverty Line Bachelors27.0018.220100 Percent Population With Bachelor's Degree Children20.725.70057.62Percent Population Children Population Density5,254.9611,747.800.03508,698People Per Square Mile Utilities5.123.45063.20 Percent Population Employed in the Utilities Sector Region West0.220.4201West=1, Else=0 Midwest0.230.4201Midwest=1, Else=0 South0.360.4801South=1, Else=0 Northeast0.190.3901Northeast=1, Else=0 Dependent VariablesFrequencyPercent Buffer 10 Non-Host Tract56,66278.62 Coal Host Tract14,51420.14 Nuclear Host Tract5710.79 Both Host Tract3210.45 Total72,068100 Buffer 20 Non-Host Tract38,76053.78 Coal Host Tract29,03740.29 Nuclear Host Tract1,6632.31 Both Host Tract2,6083.62 Total72,068100 Buffer 30 Non-Host Tract28,18739.11 Coal Host Tract33,54146.54 Nuclear Host Tract2,1572.99 Both Host Tract8,18311.35 Total72,068100

11. Multinomial logistic regression models used to predict tract type. SEE HANDOUTS

12. Summary of Results Coal host vs. Non-host tracts – Coal host tracts contained significantly greater percentages of minorities, families living in poverty, people with bachelor’s degrees, higher population density and more people employed in the utilities sector. – Coal host tracts had lower median income and number of children. – Coal host tracts were more likely to be located in the Midwest and Northeast vs. the South.

13. Summary of Results Nuclear host vs. Non-host tracts – Nuclear host tracts contained lower rates of poverty and population density. – Nuclear host tracts were less likely than non-host tracts to be located in Northeast and West – Nuclear tracts were more likely than non-host tracts to be located in the Midwest compared to the South.

14. Summary of Results Coal host vs. Nuclear host tracts – Coal host tracts contained significantly greater percentages of minorities, families living in poverty, people with bachelor’s degrees and population density. – Coal host tracts had less children, lower median incomes and percent of the population employed in the utilities sector compared with nuclear tracts

15. Discussion EJ and green criminological concerns are present in the spatial distribution of coal and nuclear power plants. Does risk perception help explain why there is less EJ concerns in nuclear tracts (i.e. why less poor and minorities live close to nuclear power plants – less perceived risk). Strange findings with education. Major limitation – all data from 2010, so causality cannot be addressed. – Fixing this by gathering retrospective data on independent variables.