IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v83y2002i1p298-316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Units of Analysis and the Environmental Justice Hypothesis: The Case of Industrial Hog Farms

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Taquino
  • Domenico Parisi
  • Duane A. Gill

Abstract

Objective. In environmental justice research, different‐sized units of analysis have generated mixed results, begging the question of what constitutes the most appropriate unit of analysis. Grappling with this question raises both conceptual and methodological issues. In this article, it is argued that, conceptually, community should be the most important unit of analysis and that, methodologically, units should be selected through an appropriate sampling procedure. These issues are addressed through an investigation of the locations of industrial hog farms in Mississippi. Methods. A geographic information system procedure was used to identify community areas and to select the sample of units. The identified community areas were compared to counties, ZIP code areas, census tracts, and census block groups through a bivariate and multivariate logistic regression. Results. Race was the only variable that was consistently not found to be significant across all units. For the remaining variables—income, education, and industry—results were mixed across units. Conclusions. This research confirms that units of different size generate different results. We argue that the decision about the most appropriate unit of analysis should be conceptually rather than statistically determined and that community is the most important unit of analysis because it holds both legal and social authority to raise concern about environmentally controversial facilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Taquino & Domenico Parisi & Duane A. Gill, 2002. "Units of Analysis and the Environmental Justice Hypothesis: The Case of Industrial Hog Farms," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 298-316, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:83:y:2002:i:1:p:298-316
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-6237.00084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00084
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-6237.00084?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Douglas S. Noonan, 2008. "Evidence of Environmental Justice: A Critical Perspective on the Practice of EJ Research and Lessons for Policy Design," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1153-1174, December.
    2. Lisa Schweitzer & Max Stephenson JR, 2007. "Right Answers, Wrong Questions: Environmental Justice as Urban Research," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(2), pages 319-337, February.
    3. Meg Huby & Steve Cinderby & Piran White & Annemarieke de Bruin, 2009. "Measuring Inequality in Rural England: The Effects of Changing Spatial Resolution," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(12), pages 3023-3037, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:83:y:2002:i:1:p:298-316. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.