Travelers Confronting Environmental Injustices Near Highways and Recycling Facilities

[Un article de The Conversation écrit par Léa Tardieu – Chargée de recherche en économie de l’environnement, Inrae – Antoine Leblois – Chargé de recherches, économie de l”environnement et du développement, Inrae – Nicolas Mondolfo – Assistant de recherche, École Normale Supérieure Paris-Saclay – Université Paris-Saclay – & Philippe Delacote – Directeur de recherche en économie à l’INRAE et Chaire Economie du Climat, Inrae]

Try to remember the last time you saw a sign designating “Travelers' welcome area”. Where did it point? In urban and peri -urban France, there is a good chance that it will direct towards a polluted area or subject to other environmental nuisances. This is what we were able to demonstrate through an unprecedented statistical study. Travelers, an administrative term designating a non -sedentary lifestyle that encompasses a multitude of Roma, Gypsy, Manouches, Sinted, Yénish, etc. communities are therefore discriminated.

Previous research had already highlighted the systemic environmental discrimination suffered by these communities in France. We can cite for example the work Where are the “Travelers”? Critical inventory of host areasthe lawyer William Acker, and the work in anthropology of Lise Epoqueneau, notably on the area of ​​Petit-Quevilly (Seine-Maritime) following the industrial accident in Lubrizol, or those of Gaëlla Loiseau.

They replace these discrimination in a historical, sociological, legal and political context, and underline the preponderant role of the distance from traveling people in public space and underline their invisibilization in public debate.

To complete the existing studies and enrich the debate on environmental injustices in France, we wanted to check whether these injustices could be observed statistically. In a study recently published in Nature Citieswe compare exposure to environmental nuisances in reception areas and other comparable residential areas.

Where to place the reception areas?

The location of the reception areas of traveling people represents a relatively unique area, in which public power imposes the places where a category of the population has the right to settle.

This makes it a particularly interesting context to study within the framework of environmental justice. Indeed, the literature on environmental justice is concentrated almost exclusively on the phenomena of spatial, involuntary and systemic segregation. On the other hand, the case of the areas of Travelers highlights an injustice produced directly by repeated public decisions, and not by spontaneous residential dynamics.

In France, since the law of July 5, 2000, known as Besson law, participation in the reception of traveling people is compulsory for municipalities with more than 5,000 inhabitants. But this necessity is, in fact, little respected. The latest official DIHAL figures report the following elements: only 12 out of 95 departments comply with the prescriptions provided for by their diagram.

To decide the place of installation of an area, local elected officials can either establish it on their territory, or participate in its financing in a neighboring municipality, community of municipalities or community of agglomeration within the framework of a public establishment of inter -municipal cooperation (EPCI).

Currently, however, less than a public inter -municipal cooperation establishment in two is in compliance. Despite these lack of conformity, the Besson law had the main consequence of built the reception areas mainly in urban areas.

The departmental reception and housing patterns of the Travelers, approved by the State by a decree signed by the prefect of the department, assess the situation at the level of the department and determine the objectives and obligations for a period of six years. The scheme specifies, among other things, the number of reception areas and the municipalities having the obligation to have them.

Concentrated areas in the municipalities most exposed to environmental nuisances …

We initially analyzed the characteristics of the municipalities welcoming the areas. The situation of municipalities with more than 5,000 inhabitants within an EPCI is decisive.

When a single municipality in EPCI has more than 5,000 inhabitants, it has, all other things being equal, eight times more likely to welcome an area than municipalities with less than 5,000 inhabitants. On the other hand, when several EPCI municipalities have more than 5,000 inhabitants, this probability is only four times higher. This statistic indicates that there is a negotiation between the municipalities in some cases. This negotiation may aim to limit the number of reception areas to be installed on their territory, and to avoid installing one in the town.

Our results also reveal that municipalities with more than 5,000 inhabitants who have a reception area contain, on average, more environmental nuisances than those that do not welcome. This is true for all types of nuisance, with the exception of the risk of flooding.

The gap is particularly important for certain types of nuisances. For example, 55 % of the municipalities welcoming an area house a very polluting factory, compared to 34 % of the municipalities that do not welcome. Regarding recycling centers, these proportions amounted to 64 % and 47 %, respectively.

In addition, the municipalities in which the rental value of housing (which reflects the market price) is higher are less likely to accommodate an area.

These analyzes were carried out taking into account certain characteristics of the municipalities (population, area, etc.) to measure the differences between comparable municipalities.

… and, within the municipalities, in the most polluted areas

Inside the municipalities, the areas are placed in already disadvantaged areas: lower income, more social housing and more numerous households.

But the reception areas are mainly located near sources of pollution. The areas around an area have three times more likely to be near a recycling center (less than 300 meters) and more than twice as much probability of being near a treatment plant or a highway (less than 100 meters). They also have 30 % additional risk of being close to a polluted site and 40 % of being near a Factory classified SEVESO (presenting an industrial risk).

In other words, the areas are not only placed in the most modest economic areas, but among the modest areas, they are also located in the areas most exposed to environmental nuisances.

Logic of lower cost or environmental racism?

We are considering two schematic mechanisms – which do not exclude each other in practice – making it possible to explain this environmental discrimination. The choices of location of reception areas can indeed result from a cost minimization process or result from intentional discrimination on the part of the public authorities.

In the first case, it should be noted that the land close to noisy or polluting infrastructure are often cheaper, less coveted, and therefore easier to mobilize. Mayors and communities, subject to financial constraints, can therefore be tempted to install the areas where it costs the least.

Our data confirms this: the areas are often established where rents are low and access to public services limited. This has also been shown by the work of Lise Epoqueneau.

But a second explanation cannot be ruled out: that of environmental racism. Antitziganism is strongly anchored in French society, as evidenced by many media or political speeches. It is then possible that some elected officials seek to place the areas far from the residential areas to avoid hostile reactions.

Another hypothesis could be that some local elected officials make the areas unattractive in order to limit attendance. We note that the areas tend to be located on the edge of municipalities and our data also show that it is generally far from public services, such as schools or health center.

In the end, it is more than likely that the environmental discrimination that we document result from a combination of deliberate exclusion strategies and cost reduction objectives.

The absence of co-construction with the main concerned and the very limited number of consultations carried out at the local and national levels suggest that the distributive injustice which affects travelers can be a direct consequence of a procedural injustice (that is to say that they are not involved in the processes of decisions that concern them). This has been frequently documented, in particular by associations such as Angvc and Fnasat.