IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i21p5923-d280032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Theoretical Model of Environmental Justice and Environmental Inequality in China’s Four Major Economic Zones

Author

Listed:
  • Qi He

    (Research Institute for Global Value Chains, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing 100029, China)

  • Ran Wang

    (Research Institute for Global Value Chains, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing 100029, China)

  • Han Ji

    (Agricultural Information Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
    Key Laboratory of Agricultural Big Data, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Gaoyang Wei

    (Research Institute for Global Value Chains, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing 100029, China)

  • Jincheng Wang

    (Research Institute for Global Value Chains, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing 100029, China)

  • Jingwen Liu

    (Research Institute for Global Value Chains, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing 100029, China)

Abstract

With the change in China’s social structure and the emergence of the middle class, severe environmental pollution is stimulating the demand for social environmental justice in China. Facing the absence of environmental justice theory and related empirical research in China, this article introduces a general equilibrium theory model of environmental justice. It proves that under Pareto efficiency, environmental justice is difficult to achieve in a competitive market, and environmental inequality is the normal state. An econometric model is established based on demographic and socioeconomic factors, comparison with the US principle of environmental justice, and characteristic perspectives in the Chinese context. The study takes 444 counties in China’s four major economic zones, the Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei, and Chengdu–Chongqing, as the units for empirical analysis of the regional distribution of environmental inequality. The results indicate that rural residents bear higher environmental risks than urban residents. There are different environmentally vulnerable groups and environmental disparities among the four economic zones; notably, minorities in the Pearl River Delta, poor residents in Chengdu–Chongqing, and rural residents in the Yangtze River Delta bear the environmental inequality caused by industrial gas pollution. However, migrants, including rural migrants, do not disproportionately suffer environmental risks caused by industrial pollution at the county level. This paper provides theoretical support and a systematic analytical framework for the study of China’s environmental justice issues. We describe China’s environmental inequality status and provide a reference for the design of environmental justice interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Qi He & Ran Wang & Han Ji & Gaoyang Wei & Jincheng Wang & Jingwen Liu, 2019. "Theoretical Model of Environmental Justice and Environmental Inequality in China’s Four Major Economic Zones," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-19, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:5923-:d:280032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5923/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5923/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ma, Chunbo, 2010. "Who bears the environmental burden in China--An analysis of the distribution of industrial pollution sources?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1869-1876, July.
    2. Gene M. Grossman & Alan B. Krueger, 1995. "Economic Growth and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(2), pages 353-377.
    3. Michael Ash & T. Robert Fetter, 2004. "Who Lives on the Wrong Side of the Environmental Tracks? Evidence from the EPA's Risk‐Screening Environmental Indicators Model," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 85(2), pages 441-462, June.
    4. Paul Mohai & Robin Saha, 2006. "Reassessing racial and socioeconomic disparities in environmental justice research," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 43(2), pages 383-399, May.
    5. Lee Liu & Jie Liu & Zhenguo Zhang, 2014. "Environmental Justice and Sustainability Impact Assessment: In Search of Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts Caused by Coal Mining in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Liu, Lee, 2012. "Environmental poverty, a decomposed environmental Kuznets curve, and alternatives: Sustainability lessons from China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 86-92.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Davide, Di Fonzo & Alessandra, Fabri & Roberto, Pasetto, 2022. "Distributive justice in environmental health hazards from industrial contamination: A systematic review of national and near-national assessments of social inequalities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 297(C).
    2. Zheng, Shiming & Yao, Rongrong & Zou, Ke, 2022. "Provincial environmental inequality in China: Measurement, influence, and policy instrument choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qi He & Hong Fang & Han Ji & Siran Fang, 2017. "Environmental Inequality in China: A “Pyramid Model” and Nationwide Pilot Analysis of Prefectures with Sources of Industrial Pollution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Farhani, Sahbi & Mrizak, Sana & Chaibi, Anissa & Rault, Christophe, 2014. "The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainability: A panel data analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 189-198.
    3. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2011. "The Political Economy of Environmental Justice," MPRA Paper 101191, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Jake R. Nelson & Tony H. Grubesic, 2018. "Environmental Justice: A Panoptic Overview Using Scientometrics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Li, Hao & Guo, Huanxiu & Huang, Naqun & Ye, Jingjing, 2020. "Health risks of exposure to waste pollution: Evidence from Beijing," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    6. Germani, Anna Rita & Morone, Piergiuseppe & Testa, Giuseppina, 2014. "Environmental justice and air pollution: A case study on Italian provinces," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 69-82.
    7. Chakraborti, Lopamudra & Shimshack, Jay P., 2022. "Environmental disparities in urban Mexico: Evidence from toxic water pollution," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    8. Cristina Legot & Bruce London & John Shandra & Anna Rosofsky, 2011. "Proximity to Industrial Releases of Toxins and Childhood Respiratory, Developmental, and Neurological Diseases: Environmental Ascription in East Baton Rouge Parish: Revised," Working Papers wp236_revised, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
    9. Sahbi Farhani & Sana Mrizak & Anissa Chaibi & Christophe Rault, 2014. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Sustainability: A Panel Data Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 4787, CESifo.
    10. Schoolman, Ethan D. & Ma, Chunbo, 2012. "Migration, class and environmental inequality: Exposure to pollution in China's Jiangsu Province," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 140-151.
    11. Ge, Xiaodong & Li, Yaoguang & Luloff, Albert E. & Dong, Kaikai & Xiao, Jun, 2015. "Effect of agricultural economic growth on sandy desertification in Horqin Sandy Land," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 53-63.
    12. Zheng, Shiming & Yao, Rongrong & Zou, Ke, 2022. "Provincial environmental inequality in China: Measurement, influence, and policy instrument choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    13. Liu, Ying & Huang, Jikun & Zikhali, Precious, 2016. "The bittersweet fruits of industrialization in rural China: The cost of environment and the benefit from off-farm employment," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-10.
    14. Zwickl, Klara, 2019. "The demographics of fracking: A spatial analysis for four U.S. states," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 202-215.
    15. Kopas, Jacob & York, Erin & Jin, Xiaomeng & Harish, S.P. & Kennedy, Ryan & Shen, Shiran Victoria & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2020. "Environmental Justice in India: Incidence of Air Pollution from Coal-Fired Power Plants," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    16. Diane Sicotte, 2014. "Diversity and Intersectionality among Environmentally Burdened Communities in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area, USA," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(9), pages 1850-1870, July.
    17. Xiaoqing Lin & Chunyan Lu & Kaishan Song & Ying Su & Yifan Lei & Lianxiu Zhong & Yibin Gao, 2020. "Analysis of Coupling Coordination Variance between Urbanization Quality and Eco-Environment Pressure: A Case Study of the West Taiwan Strait Urban Agglomeration, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, March.
    18. Michael Greenstone & Rema Hanna, 2014. "Environmental Regulations, Air and Water Pollution, and Infant Mortality in India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 3038-3072, October.
    19. Hausman, Catherine & Stolper, Samuel, 2021. "Inequality, information failures, and air pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    20. Fujii, Hidemichi & Managi, Shunsuke, 2013. "Which industry is greener? An empirical study of nine industries in OECD countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 381-388.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:5923-:d:280032. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.