De los patrones temporales (T-Patterns)

If disability is an issue of social justice, as argued in Chapter One, then it can also be conceptualised as an issue of environmental justice. The two issues can be interlinked, as shown in an initial attempt to map the literature regarding disability and environmental concerns undertaken by the researcher prior to this investigation (see Fenney and Snell, 2011). The rest of this section comprises a summary and further development of the findings of this article.

As a matter of distributive justice on a global scale, disabled people are more likely than non-disabled people to be adversely affected by changes in, or damage to, the natural environment. This is, in large part, because disabled people are over-represented amongst those in poverty. People in poverty face greater risk of exposure to environmental damage from pollution and climate change (Kett, 2008; Polack, 2008). They also face exacerbation of existing health conditions in such circumstances (Page and Howard, 2010; Innes, 2009; Summers, 2008). This affects disabled people in both developed and

developing nations. It has come under scrutiny since the Asian tsunami in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2006 (Wolbring, 2009; Hemingway and Priestley, 2006). Many disabled people died, not only due to these weather events, but also because of poorly planned and inaccessible or inappropriate relief.

Additionally, Page and Howard (2010) note that provision for those with chronic conditions is often siphoned off to those with new acute needs following

environmental disasters. Wolbring (2009) highlights that these services are often already inadequate before such events.

Disabled people facing poverty in the UK context also experience environmental injustices. Poverty leads to a lack of choice and control regarding personal pro- environmental behaviours. For example, the ability to recycle can be affected by many factors including housing situation and access to a vehicle (Adebowale et al., 2009; Burningham and Thrush, 2001). Choice and control regarding pro- environmental behaviour may also be limited for disabled people who live in residential care settings (Lovelock, 2010). Many disabled people experience barriers to accessing to green space and to participating in more general environmental activities. These may be physical barriers such as inaccessible transport options or information, or attitudinal barriers such as harassment from other individuals (Countryside Agency, 2005b). Access to green space is

foundational for disabled people’s inclusion. Although not in itself ‘pro- environmental’, contact with nature fosters environmental knowledge and appreciation (DEFRA, 2008b). In the UK, DEFRA and the Countryside Agency have conducted research and issued strategy documents covering physical, social and attitudinal barriers to accessing green space (DEFRA 2008b; Countryside Agency, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). This issue has received the most UK policy attention to date – perhaps due to its natural progression from access to the built environment, an issue well-documented in disability studies. Green space also brings health benefits (Mind, 2007; Sensory Trust, 2006), to which disabled people may also face unequal access.

Procedural injustices may lead to the kinds of distributive injustices described here because disabled people are often excluded from participation in

environmental decision making. This is despite debates around sustainability having a strong focus on participation, particularly at the international level. The literature on participation relating to environmental sustainability rarely takes account of disability, however, and vice versa. For example, no disability organisations featured among the registered observers at the UNFCCC gatherings (Polack, 2008), and Adebowale and Church (2009) highlighted the lack of attention to disability regarding DEFRA’s research into population involvement with pro-environmental behaviours – although it should be noted that the DfT have begun to address this issue regarding transport behaviours (Thornton et al., 2011). Disabled people as a demographic – like minority ethnic groups, older people and young people – have been largely ignored by the environmental sector (Adebowale and Church, 2009; Adebowale et al., 2009). A related issue is the reproduction of unequal power relations in so- called participatory approaches, leading to failure or disempowerment (see for example Cooke and Kothari, 2000; Oliver, 1992). This is potentially negative for participation. Avoiding or mitigating these issues requires a high level of

reflexivity, consideration of methods, and attention to unequal power relations between facilitators and participants.

This may also be an issue of misrecognition. In Chapter Two it was shown how sustainability-focused policies ignore the potential active contribution of disabled people by either ignoring disability or only considering it in relation to

implied citizen like being able to access public transport or green space) were identified in these policies. Therefore, it is unsurprising that disabled people have not been included in formal or informal environmental decision-making processes – the particular needs and potential contributions of disabled people have not been recognised, leading (in Fraser's definition) to exclusion from participation. Charles and Thomas (2007) argue that environmental justice struggles need to recognise disability issues. Although not grounded in theoretical concepts of recognition, their research captures a number of instances of misrecognition of the Deaf community in local authority environmental decision-making processes.

Reproduction of privilege may also be a factor in why disability is often missed in wider sustainability debates – for example, accessibility issues are often not considered by environmentalists – such as physical access to environmental activities (Adebowale et al., 2009). Some implications of unequal access for disabled people have already been noted with regard to the environmental citizenship literature. It is therefore clear from this brief summary that the potential implications of disabled people’s exclusion are far-reaching.