UCLA

This dissertation examines differences in government and community responses to local industrial pollution disasters and the differences in outcomes received by demographically different community types. It does so by asking two distinct research questions. First, what factors influence the mode of mobilization a community engages in, when responding to an industrial pollution disaster? Second, what factors influence government responsiveness to these mobilized communities? I examine these questions through the use of comparative case study analysis of Porter Ranch and Southeast Los Angeles. This study connects social movement theory with literature on environmental racism. It does so by extending Fredrick Harris’ (2006) argument that historically informed collective memory spurs or motivates participation in collective action, to also consider how collective memory influences the modes, or tactics, of mobilization. This dissertation also engages with Hahrie Han’s “issue publics” theory, to understand the motivation for collective action in polluted communities (2006). With the use of ethnographic, interview, and media sources, I find that the local collective memory of a community’s relationship with local government, determines the mode of mobilization in which that community engages when it experiences an industrial pollution disaster. Specifically, I find that communities with a collective memory of a positive relationship with the state, will utilize that tactics that demonstrate an expectation of government responsiveness; I call this the faith-in-government framework. Likewise, a community with a collective memory of a negative relationship with local government will utilize tactics that demonstrate no expectation of government responsiveness; I call this the no-faith-in-government framework. In response to the second research question, I engage with the literature on government emergency response. I argue in agreement with Birkland and De Young (2011) that coordination across different levels of government leads to procedural uncertainty and impacts the quality of local government responsiveness to pollution disasters. I find support for Birkland and De Young and also find that the ad hoc creation of industrial pollution legislation has exacerbated the uncertainty the authors described. These findings demonstrate the importance of creating comprehensive industrial pollution policies that consider both emergency prevention and emergency response and have implications for policy makers and community activists alike.