ADDRESSING RACIAL DISPARITIES IN US PORT DEVELOPMENT

ADDRESSING RACIAL DISPARITIES IN US PORT DEVELOPMENT THROUGH INCLUSIVE PORT DECARBONIZATION PLANNING

AMANDA ULLMAN

Amanda Ullman is a first-year PhD student in the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC Chapel Hill. Her research is aimed at investigating the environmental and equity impacts of energy systems development in Latin America and the Caribbean.

NOAH KITTNER

Noah Kittner is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering with adjunct appointments in the Department of City and Regional Planning and Environment, Ecology, and Energy Program at UNC Chapel Hill. His research focuses on the transition to clean and low-carbon electricity systems from a multi-disciplinary perspective.

ABSTRACT Container ports are widely known as hubs of economic activity offering businesses access to international markets. The nation’s largest ports move hundreds of billions of dollars of goods annually and often provide income to local communities on the order of $50 billion. The vessels and equipment that operate at ports, however, are responsible for high levels of greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutant emissions. These emissions contribute greatly to global climate change and have detrimental health effects on near-port neighborhoods, which have historically been composed of low-income Black and Latinx community members. This article suggests strategies and research needs to rectify environmental and health-related disparities in U.S. ports.

INTRODUCTION Container ports serve as gateways to international markets and drivers of economic growth. While hundreds of billions of dollars of the world’s goods move through U.S. container ports, port activity is largely hidden from the public eye. The costs of ports, however, have historically affected communities of color in an outsized way through exposure to harmful air pollutants and lack of economic opportunity. Intensive fossil fuel consumption from oceangoing vessels, port drayage equipment, and freight truck traffic creates serious environmental and health issues for near-port communities and underlying ecosystems. For decades, distribution of these costs and benefits has been far from equal. While White households have benefitted from the economic opportunities offered by large container ports, past policies have also enabled white flight to neighborhoods insulated from the noise pollution, air pollution, and vehicular traffic commonly found at ports.

As affluent households moved, it became more acceptable to perpetuate the presence of polluting industries across container shipping port neighborhoods. The result of this resembles that of many other cases examined in environmental justice scholarship: primarily low-income, Black and Latinx neighborhoods situated in near-port communities disproportionately faced increasing levels of pollution (EPA 2016). Those neighborhoods continue to incur long-term exposure to pollutants commonly emitted from the industrial processes and vehicular movement at container ports, like nitrous oxides (NOx), sulfur oxide (SOx), and particulate matter (PM). Extended exposure to these pollutants often leads to chronic respiratory health issues and increases the risk of stroke, heart disease, and lung cancer (WHO 2021). Greenhouse gas emissions from port processes also contribute to climate change, which is of great threat to coastal communities that are prone to flooding, sea level rise, and water damage in buildings. Sustainable development at container ports has the potential to address historical inequities, criteria air pollutant emissions, and climate change inducing industrial processes. However, historically, port development and climate change mitigation policies have neglected these equity considerations.

Background

Understanding the inequitable distribution of costs and benefits provided to society by U.S. ports requires a historicized look into the early expression of White supremacy surrounding port cities’ urban planning processes. Investigation into the presence of White supremacy in early urban planning procedures is a necessary step for calling attention to the structures of racism built deeply into the foundation of American society and its institutions. In the case of port cities, it is helpful to identify the pathways through which Whiteness in urban planning measures, port employment, and port technology and energy consumption has led to disproportionate funneling of benefits to White communities. By identifying these inequitable foundations of American cities, we can begin to understand how to redistribute these benefits and rectify institutions that have historically passed along societal and environmental costs of ports predominantly to communities of color.

Early American Ports:

Throughout the transatlantic slave trade, U.S. ports served as the entryway for African men, women, and children forced from their homes to be sold as slaves to White slaveholders and slave traders (Lowcountry Digital History Initiative 2020). Ports’ early institutional role as gateways to an American society built on White supremacy underscored future economic inequities. Institutions disproportionately designed to economically support White communities simultaneously exposed many non-White, low-income communities in close

TABLE 1 - HOLC “Residential Security” Map, Baltimore, MD.

Photo credit: Johns Hopkins University Library

proximity to ports across the country. White community officials dominated development of policies and plans of port cities and near-port neighborhoods, like Baltimore, Seattle, and Charleston. Baltimore, for instance, only elected its first Black city council member in 1890; Seattle its first Black city council member in 1967 and its first Hispanic city council member in 2015 (Baltimore City Council 2007; Frantilla 2021; City of Seattle 2021). Charleston had no Black city council members between 1877 and 1967 during critical phases of infrastructure investment and planning (City of Charleston 2021). As was the case in many American cities, White supremacy was systematically ingrained in port cities through policies like racially restrictive covenants, redlining policies, and predatory lending practices by financial institutions. Racially restrictive covenants relegated Black, Latinx, Asian, and Jewish households to less desirable areas of town, which, in port cities, were often those closest to the high levels of traffic, noise, and industrial pollution that take place in the port complex (Scott 2020). Similar processes resulted from the redlining policies that began to take place in the U.S. during and following the Great Depression, in which real estate assessors, like the federal Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC), rated neighborhoods on their investment risk. In these cases, risk was based on characteristics of the housing stock, residents’ occupations, and residents’ races (Nelson et al. 2020). Such a practice disproportionately benefited White residents, whose neighborhoods were valued more highly and prioritized for mortgage loans with generous lending terms due to their “low risk” status (Rice 2009). Redlined neighborhoods, or those neighborhoods that were designated as highest-risk and provided the fewest mortgage lending opportunities, were most commonly composed of Black residents. Such was the case in the city of Baltimore, for example, in which assessors prioritized investment in “low-risk,” predominantly White communities by labeling the plots of land surrounding the port, where Black communities were concentrated, as “high-risk” loan areas (see Figure 1). This systematic denial of social mobility allowed Whites to hoard economic power and political power, even after slavery was formally abolished in 1865.

The State of U.S. Ports Today:

Today’s ports are greatly important economic hubs. For example, the Port of Long Beach moves an estimated $206 billion worth of goods through the port each year. About one in five Long Beach residents are employed by the port, which generates $44.6 billion per year in local, state, and federal taxes (Port of Long Beach 2019). On the East Coast, the Port of Charleston reports that it provides over $63.4 billion in economic activity, $12.8 billion in wages, and 225,000 jobs to the state of South Carolina (South Carolina Ports 2019).

Growth in port activity has been attributed to increasing levels of American consumption and unsustainable ship traffic, which are heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Currently, a culture of consumerism drives port development, as greater consumption of foreign goods and materials invokes greater levels of container ship traffic (Levinson 2016). National-scale studies document the racial-ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure due to

the inequity in consumption of goods and services (Tessum et al. 2019). While greater port traffic is often associated with greater port profitability, these increased profits don’t always accrued to locally based terminal owners. Instead, in many container ports, like the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of New York/New Jersey, port terminals are owned by multinational companies, based frequently in Japan, Europe, and Canada (Port of Los Angeles 2020; Port Authority NY NJ 2020). Thus, the ultimate result of this increase in business is that local communities incur far greater levels of greenhouse gas emissions without benefitting from the totality of economic growth possible from increased port profitability. Indeed, while company profitability may lead to some local expansion, studies have illustrated how increased profitability is often more greatly correlated with corporate stock buybacks and executive compensation and less towards supporting local employees (Lazonick 2014).

A look into the individuals that hold port leadership positions also suggests that increases in port profitability disproportionately accrue to White households. While publicly available data on the demographics of port employees have not been made accessible for any of the United States’ major container ports, leadership profiles of the ports reveal that port leadership positions are overwhelmingly filled by White men (Georgia Ports Authority 2020; SC Ports Authority 2020; Port of Virginia 2020). Furthermore, statistics on wealth distribution in port cities suggest that port development tied to increased consumerism has done little, if anything, to support economic equality between White and non-White households. This is illustrated in Baltimore, where the city’s predominantly white, affluent neighborhoods have average incomes of $100,000 per year, which is $75,000 greater than the average incomes of the residents that live in the rowhouse neighborhoods historically occupied by Black families (Kresh & Deason 2016).

Benefits experienced by White households are not purely economic, though. White households in suburban neighborhoods have also been shielded from the environmental and health detriments associated with port processes. These detriments result from a variety of processes that take place at ports, which lack the regulation necessary to protect nearby communities from ports’ industrial pollution. Such detriments are similar to those issues incurred in communities adjacent to power generation facilities; however, ports are uniquely situated in complex global shipping networks. For example, ports produce high levels of air and noise pollution from containerships that continuously consume diesel fuel while idling and traveling within port waters. Adding to this pollution are the emissions released from small harbor craft and drayage equipment used to load, unload, and transport cargo containers. In many cities, these issues are often compounded by the frequent siting of oil refineries in close proximity to container ports for facilitated exportation of refined oil products (Hein 2018). In Baltimore, port operations are responsible for high levels of criteria air pollutant emissions, which have been found to contribute 11% of the city’s NOx emissions and 10% of its PM emissions (International Coalition on Clean Transportation 2007); the tract surrounding the port has the highest levels of asthma-induced hospitalizations in the city (Environmental Integrity Project 2017). Further studies demonstrate that proximity to the port is not the only environmental justice indicator, as pollution can travel further distances through weather, sometimes reaching communities far from cities centers, where pollution intake can also disproportionately accumulate in minority neighborhoods (Nguyen & Marshall 2018).

Currently, container ports and planning communities are at a crossroads, where they must decide if they are willing to undertake the steps necessary to relieve nearport communities of these heavy emissions through participatory planning opportunities and better metrics to track the inequity between consumption of goods and services and the detrimental effects on communities of color (Tessum et al. 2019). Diesel fuel consumption has contributed significantly to the racial health disparities in port communities, but lack of regulation of ports and inherent technological challenges have thus far prevented diesel-eliminating decarbonization efforts from taking place (Nguyen & Marshall 2018). If this work is to be done, the United States will need large-scale solutions to comprehensively reduce the vessel, equipment, and

City

Miami, FL

NOx Emission Contribution

28%

City

Miami, FL

PM Emission Contribution

29%

Wilmington, NC

Seattle, WA

Baton Rouge and New Orleans, LA

Baltimore, MD and Washington D.C.

Los Angeles, CA 27%

26%

16%

11%

9% Seattle, WA

Baton Rouge and New Orleans, LA

Wilmington, NC

Baltimore, MD and Washington D.C.

Corpus Christi, TX 25%

23%

22%

10%

10%

TABLE 1 - NOx and PM Contributions from International Ships in Major U.S. Port Cities. Adapted from the International Council on Clean

Transport (2007).

vehicle emissions released at ports. Ports vary widely in their governance structures, ranging from immediate governance by port authorities to state and federal governance that regulates emissions targets that ports must meet. As such, inclusive environmental reform at ports will require a broader, more diverse planning community to ascertain the optimal technologies, fuel alternatives, and development plans to employ.

Future Port Planning:

Correcting the drastic imbalances of cost and benefit dispersion in port cities will require anti-subordination (Steil 2018) and equity-focused proposals that prioritize participative planning, environmental justice, and support for near-port communities. As noted previously, significant environmental issues at ports must be corrected, including equipment and vessel emissions, heavy traffic caused by incoming and outgoing trucks, and noise pollution from port operations. However, it is necessary that such corrective policies be developed through planning processes that prioritize near-port community voices so that they adequately support the historical and economic integrity of nearport communities. Corrective policies must adequately redirect economic benefits to community members and protect neighborhoods from the environmental harm and economic loss that have historically accompanied environmental policies and that are already beginning to take place in redeveloped port communities. Steps that planners and policymakers might take to promote this equitable redistribution of benefits and reduction in costs include:

• Create workforce development opportunities for near-port community members through a comprehensive Green New Deal-type policy

• Involve local communities in transit-oriented development to focus on accessibility and mobility in near-port neighborhoods

• Research the costs and benefits of zeroemissions sustainable development to ensure strategies improve equity and health in near-port communities

A “Green New Deal” policy describes legislation designed to comprehensively address climate change while transforming the economy to support historically disadvantaged communities (Ocasio-Cortez 2019). This type of policy derives inspiration from the New Deal programs and projects launched by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression. A Green New Dealtype policy has great potential to address disparities across economic benefits and reduce the environmental and health impacts of container ports, since its comprehensive nature could catalyze the elimination of diesel and bunker fuel consumption at ports. To ensure inclusivity in this legislation, though, a Green New Deal policy must not just prioritize green environmental action, but must also prioritize support of port communities through highquality local job training and employment. Without this community-centered focus, redeveloped port areas would likely gentrify further without displaced communities realizing the benefits.

There are many avenues through which communityfocused sustainable development could occur, however further research is needed to examine the potential costs and benefits of these policies on near-port communities. One emerging potential source of new job creation, for example, could be promotion of green hydrogen fuels at ports to power port drayage equipment, small harbor craft, and large vessels and ships. Hydrogen fuels have a promising future in the maritime industry, as experts have identified the fuel as the optimal sustainable technology for decarbonizing trans-oceanic container ship travel (Mao et al. 2020). These fuels, however, have mostly been produced through the use of fossil fuels and could exacerbate fossil fuel production without careful policy development. Alternatively, attention to new opportunities to use wind and solar power to produce hydrogen through electrolysis could offer unique promise. Planning processes must examine the equity implications of hydrogen at ports to determine how to optimally produce hydrogen and ensure economic inclusion. For example, local production of these fuels could offer significant workforce development opportunities specifically designed to support near-port community members. An inclusive Green New Deal policy could also employ fiscal policy measures, like a price on carbon, to account for the environmental and health externalities arising from use of heavy-polluting equipment and vessels at ports. The revenue earned from such a tax could, for example, be re-invested in near-port communities through assessment of communities’ unique needs—such as support for affordable, high-quality housing options, financial assistance for residential energy efficiency and weatherization interventions, or technical assistance and ample lending opportunities for small businesses owned by community residents. However, a great concern with a price on carbon and other fiscal measures is the potential to bring out regressive effects, further burdening lower-income and disadvantaged communities. Planning processes must include specific analyses to understand the implications of such measures for local communities and should include community voices to best understand how allocation of tax revenues could best support community needs.

Another direct planning strategy that could be wellsuited for near-port communities is investment in transit-oriented development (TOD). TOD envisions the creation of dense, walkable neighborhoods that facilitate and motivate greater uptake of sustainable transit modes, like public transit, walking, and biking. These designs seek to increase environmental sustainability by reducing vehicular greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutant emissions, and to decrease residents’ travel costs through decreased dependence on personal automobiles. Ports are ideal locations for transit-oriented development as most ports are sited in urban neighborhoods with density levels that are high enough to support increased levels of public transit. The mixed-use residential and commercial developments commonly associated with TOD would be well supported by the local economic activity generated by the ports. While TOD would not directly eliminate pollution arising from the port itself, the sustainable design would provide a mode through which to decrease air pollution and vehicular traffic originating within near-port neighborhoods, thereby decreasing total pollution levels in these vulnerable communities. To do so

successfully, though, TOD in port neighborhoods should be accompanied by the adoption of mixed-use zoning ordinances, allowing for neighborhood density increases and facilitated travel by foot, bike, and public transit (Brozen et al. 2018). TOD could even allow for the creation of transit hubs that link the port with the rest of the city, creating environmentally sustainable modes of access to and from the port.

However, TOD is commonly associated with high housing costs and gentrification as neighborhoods benefit from new amenities (Rayle 2015). Further research on equity in TOD planning and on the dispersal of costs and benefits of TOD among different communities is critical. Past research has noted, for example, that TOD can successfully lower residents’ cost of living if policymakers encourage increased housing density in TOD neighborhoods to meet the increased demand, greater tenant protections, and more affordable housing options (Brozen et al. 2018). Redevelopment of near-port neighborhoods should be conducted to support the existing community’s needs, preserving their historic cultural foundations, and ensuring that community members maintain affordability of their homes. Such redevelopment should follow reparative planning tenets, prioritizing the voices of Black community members in the planning process and redistributing public goods in such a way that acknowledges and repairs injustices that Black households have faced and continue to face today (Williams 2020). Opportunities to increase environmental sustainability as well as social mobility among residents of near-port communities may be achievable through intentional inclusion of community members in TOD planning processes. Neglect of these inclusionary planning processes, however, may reinforce current systemic inequities and lead to further civil unrest and animosity among communities.

CONCLUSION The inequitable distribution of the costs and benefits associated with America’s container ports is a phenomenon that has arisen from centuries of urban planning decisions that neglect the voices of communities of color. Redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and White flight have enabled White communities to hoard the economic benefits that ports provide to the local and national economies while simultaneously concentrating ports’ environmental health impacts in lowincome communities of color. There are many lessons that we must take away from these public planning failures if we are to correct these systemic engines of inequity. Urban planning processes in port cities should prioritize reparative planning processes and implement sustainability interventions, like an inclusive Green New Deal and community-driven transit-oriented development, to begin to correct these wrongdoings. Future research must be conducted on how to best implement these planning processes, specifically highlighting and supporting the wants and needs of near-port communities. In implementing future public policy measures, a more inclusive research agenda will investigate how benefits of public policies are distributed among members of the community’s varying racial and economic groups. Current research does not identify how demographics of near-port communities in many American cities have changed over time, especially in the context of increasing gentrification of coastal communities. More voices from local communities with connections to the ports should be incorporated into examinations of these benefits to highlight the often-overlooked context of disempowered neighborhoods and communities. Greater transparency is needed to identify the representation of near-port community members in highly coveted well-paying jobs at the ports, and workforce development processes should be put in place to create environmentally sustainable job opportunities for historically disadvantaged community members. This work is essential for planners, as the field of urban planning can help create more inclusive and equitable ports in ways that are not currently exhibited in today’s near-port community development plans. Such work can begin to develop more inclusive and sustainable port cities that are designed to prioritize equity and environmental justice first.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors attest that they have no financial interest in the materials and subjects discussed in this article.

REFERENCES

Baltimore City Council. 2007. Baltimore City Council: History. https:// web.archive.org/web/20070818113541/http://www.baltimorecitycouncil. com/history.htm.

Brozen, Madeline, Matthew Hartzell, Michael Manville, Paavo Monkkonen Monkkonen, and Mark Villianatos. 2018. “Transit Oriented Los Angeles: Envisioning an Equitable and Thriving Future,” November. http:// escholarship.org/uc/item/4r514641.

City of Charleston. 2021. African American Council Members. https:// www.charleston-sc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18338/Charleston-AfricanAmerican-City-Council-Members?bidId=.

City of Seattle. 2021. About Councilmember Lorena González. http:// www.seattle.gov/council/meet-the-council/lorena-gonz%C3%A1lez/ about-lorena.

EPA. 2016. Environmental Justice Primer for Ports. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ documents/420p16002.pdf.

Frantilla, Anne. 2021. Sam Smith (1922-1995), Seattle City Councilmember. https://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/exhibits-and-education/digitaldocument-libraries/city-councilman-sam-smith.

Georgia Ports Authority. 2020. Leadership Team. Georgia Ports Authority. https://gaports.com/organization/leadership-team/.

Hein, Carola. 2018. “‘Old Refineries Rarely Die’: Port City Refineries as Key Nodes in The Global Petroleumscape.” Canadian Journal of History 53 (3): 450–479. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjh.ach.53.3.05.

HOLC. 1937. “Residential Security Map of Baltimore Md.” https://dspaceprod.mse.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/32621.

International Coalition on Clean Transportation. 2007. Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ocean-Going Ships: Impacts, Mitigation Options and Opportunities for Managing Growth. https://theicct.org/sites/ default/files/publications/oceangoing_ships_2007.pdf.

Kresh, Nate, and Madeleine Deason. 2016. Drive Nine Miles across Baltimore, Life Expectancy Drops 15 Years. CNS Maryland. http:// cnsmaryland.org/baltimore-health/story/drive-nine-miles-acrossbaltimore-life-expectancy-drops-15-years.html.

Lazonick, William. 2014. “Profits Without Prosperity.” Harvard Business Review, September, 9.

Levinson, Marc. 2016. The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger. REV-Revised, 2. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcszztg.

Lowcountry Digital History Initiative. 2020. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade · African Passages, Lowcountry Adaptations. http://ldhi. library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/ introductionatlanticworld/trans_atlantic_slave_trade.

Mao, Xiaoli, Dan Rutherford, Liudmila Osipova, and Bryan Comer. 2020. “Refueling Assessment of a Zero-Emission Container Corridor between China and the United States: Could Hydrogen Replace Fossil Fuels?” The International Council on Clean Transport, March, 13. Nelson, Robert, LaDale Winling, Richard Marciano, and Nathan Connolly. 2021. “Mapping Inequality.” In American Panorama.

Nguyen, Nam P., and Julian D. Marshall. 2018. “Impact, Efficiency, Inequality, and Injustice of Urban Air Pollution: Variability by Emission Location.” Environmental Research Letters 13 (2): 024002. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9cb5.

Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria. 2019. Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal. https://www.congress.gov/116/ bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf.

Port Authority NY NJ. 2020. Container Terminals. https://www.panynj. gov/port/en/our-port/container-terminals.html.

Port of Long Beach. 2019. “Study Confirms Port’s Nationwide Impact,” April. https://polb.com/port-info/news-and-press/study-confirms-portsnationwide-impact-04-30-2019/.

Port of Los Angeles. 2020. Container Terminals. https://www. portoflosangeles.org/business/terminals/container.

Port of Virginia. 2020. Our Leadership \textbar Port of Virginia. https:// www.portofvirginia.com/who-we-are/our-leadership/.

Rayle, Lisa. 2015. “Investigating the Connection Between Transit-Oriented Development and Displacement: Four Hypotheses.” Housing Policy Debate 25 (3): 531–548.

Rice, Lisa. 2009. An Examination of Civil Rights Issues with Respect to the Mortgage Crisis: The Effects of Predatory Lending on the Mortgage Crisis. US Commission on Civil Rights.

SC Ports Authority. 2020. Executive Management. SC Ports Authority. http://scspa.com/about/mission-and-leadership/executive-management/.

Scott, Amy. 2020. Inequality by Design: How Redlining Continues to Shape Our Economy. Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/2020/04/16/ inequality-by-design-how-redlining-continues-to-shape-our-economy/.

South Carolina Ports. 2019. S.C. Ports Makes a $63.4 Billion Annual Economic Impact on S.C. SC Ports Authority. http://scspa.com/news/sc-ports-makes-a-63-4-billion-annual-economic-impact-on-s-c/.

Steil, Justin. 2018. “Antisubordination Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, December, 0739456X18815739. https://doi. org/10.1177/0739456X18815739.

Tessum, Christopher W., Joshua S. Apte, Andrew L. Goodkind, Nicholas Z. Muller, Kimberley A. Mullins, David A. Paolella, Stephen Polasky, et al. 2019. “Inequity in Consumption of Goods and Services Adds to Racial–Ethnic Disparities in Air Pollution Exposure.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (13): 6001–6006. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1818859116.

WHO. 2021. Ambient Air Pollution: Health Impacts. WHO. http://www. who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/.

Williams, Rashad A. 2020. “From Racial to Reparative Planning: Confronting the White Side of Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. https://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/10.1177/0739456X20946416.