Understanding Sustainability and How It Impacts People of Color

Introduction

According to the United Nations Brundtland Commission, sustainability means being able to meet personal needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Hajian & Kashani, 2021). In that context, sustainability calls for the earth’s environmental systems to be kept in balance while ensuring that natural resources are consumed at a rate that they are naturally replenished (Viswanathan & Varghese, 2018). Though sustainability ought to be approached equally in all tenets of life, the issue of environmental racism is more likely to affect people of color than whites (Waldron, 2021). According to Benz (2017), environmental racism refers to a form of inequality that subjects blacks to more environmental hazards, such as living in polluted areas, than their white counterparts. Benz (2017) notes that since the 1980s, when this term came to light following environmental protests, the concept of sustainability has continued to adversely affect people of color. Bullard (2002) elaborates this concept further by showing that environmental racism, as a concept, may be interpreted based on several meanings. The first interpretation refers to inequalities in external environmental conditions. As a consequence, the health status of people of color is likely to deteriorate more than their white counterparts (Bullard, 2022). Secondly, environmental discrimination may be understood from the perspective of ecological policies. For instance, environmental policies in the United States have contributed to the construction of hazardous enterprises in impoverished areas inhabited by people of color.

Numerous research on sustainability and environmental racism illustrates the overall impacts on blacks by showing that this group is highly affected by pollution than the white population (Nardone et al., 2020). Research findings show that the adverse impacts of sustainability on the black population are ascribed to the concept of racism, which results in environmental injustice (Wright, 2021; Collins & Grineski, 2019; Pulido, 2017). In the United States, environmental injustice means that people of color are more likely to live in polluted areas (Lee, 2019). This occurrence is intentional since most companies are deliberately located in these areas, increasing pollution rates. As a result, blacks reside in neighborhoods characterized by few health-promoting environmental amenities, such as parks, and having more environmental hazards (Boone et al., 2009). The inequality is detrimental to this population since they are exposed to racial health disparities, such as asthma and cancer, resulting from living in environmentally polluted areas.

Further research shows that communities inhabited by people of color, such as in California, are more susceptible to environmentally-related sicknesses, such as cancer, because of highly toxic air contaminants (Cushing et al., 2015). The high risk of environmentally sensitive illnesses is also attributed to the high average levels of nitrate contamination in drinking water and being close to hazardous wastewater sites (Mathewson et al, 2020). Ahmed et al. (2021) hypothesize that the concept of sustainability and its impacts on people of color may not be researched thoroughly. Therefore, researchers must conduct further analytic frameworks to help understand how this group of people is exposed to multiple environmental hazards (Schusler et al., 2020). Schusler et al. mentions that the frameworks should be used to consider the differential susceptibility to health impacts from pollution exposure. The assessment should also consider that the impacts of sustainability and the concept of environmental racism may have diverse impacts on a population, especially from an individual and community-level perspective (Schusler et al., 2020). Specifically, the evaluation should consider the age and health status of the black population in the respective neighborhoods as it will help determine the specific impacts of environmental racism on this population (Schusler et al., 2020). The approach may also factor in preexisting conditions, increasing air pollution vulnerability.