In 1969, an oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, became a defining moment in the history of the American environmental movement. This incident did not just elicit widespread outrage due to the visible damage it caused to the picturesque coastline; it also illuminated deeper socio-political dynamics underlying the modern environmental movement. According to Pollyanna Rhee, a landscape architecture professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, the movement has often been harnessed to protect the property and social interests of affluent homeowners rather than addressing broader societal environmental justice issues. Rhee’s recent scholarship meticulously explores this tension through the lens of what she terms “ownership environmentalism,” an approach focused on property protection and community norms instead of collective ecological well-being.
Rhee’s work situates the Santa Barbara oil spill within the broader context of environmental awareness that surged in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The spill occurred alongside other notable environmental crises such as the Cuyahoga River fire in Ohio, yet it attracted far more national attention and catalyzed significant policy responses, including the establishment of Earth Day and the Environmental Protection Agency. This discrepancy in national attention reveals underlying value judgments about the environments deserving protection and the populations deemed worthy of political concern.
Environmentalism during this era marked a paradigmatic shift from traditional conservationist ideals—centered on natural resource management guided by scientists and experts—to a populist social movement embodying the concerns of everyday citizens. These concerns ranged from the toxic imposition of industrial chemicals and pollution to the existential threat of nuclear weapons, and the relentless encroachment of highways and suburban sprawl on wilderness areas. However, Rhee’s research argues that this burgeoning environmental consciousness was heavily shaped by homeowners whose priority was to maintain the status quo of property values and community homogeneity.
This “ownership environmentalism” is characterized by a preoccupation with the quality of local environments, often reflected in mundane actions such as lawn maintenance and neighborhood beautification. Yet, it lacked a coherent, inclusive political framework regarding environmental quality or justice. It was, in essence, an environmentalism of place and privilege, anchored in the preservation of social hierarchies. Such localized environmentalism echoed earlier social movements in the 1920s and 1930s, which were frequently led by affluent suburban women advocating for community improvement through garden clubs and civic organizations.
An example of this phenomenon is found in Santa Barbara’s response to the 1925 earthquake. The city was rebuilt with a codified Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style, which intentionally reflected a curated version of local history and geography preferred by wealthy white homeowners. This architectural homogenization reinforced social exclusivity under the guise of aesthetic and climatic appropriateness. Rhee suggests that the 1969 oil spill challenged the community’s constructed relationship to the environment, but their response remained rooted in a desire to protect property and local identity, rather than confronting the systemic drivers of environmental degradation or fossil fuel dependency.
The political reach of ownership environmentalism is sharply constrained. It tends to exclude broader concerns of equity and justice, focusing instead on shielding established privileges and resisting developments that might disrupt community character, such as multifamily housing or urban infill. While environmentalism is often heralded for preserving open spaces and biodiversity, its deployment as a tool for social exclusion complicates its progressive narrative. Affluent communities, by invoking environmental concerns, sometimes effectively resist changes that could democratize housing availability or address environmental inequalities.
This critique is not abstract—it reveals how environmental priorities are often aligned with the interests of the well-off rather than with the needs of marginalized groups facing disproportionate environmental burdens. Ownership environmentalism’s emphasis on preserving green spaces or maintaining pristine neighborhood aesthetics can mask an underlying agenda to uphold racial and socio-economic segregation. As such, the movement faces growing backlash from environmental justice advocates, affordable housing proponents, and climate activists who challenge its narrow focus and exclusive orientation.
Rhee’s scholarship advocates for a broader understanding of environmentalism, one that integrates not only the protection of biodiversity and natural beauty but also the examination of lived experiences and socio-political structures shaping environmental health. She emphasizes that everyday interactions with local environments profoundly influence how individuals conceptualize environmental quality and responsibility. By interrogating these micro-level relationships, researchers can better unravel how environmental pressures are internalized and acted upon within communities.
The methodological approach that Rhee employs includes immersive, place-based research, using Santa Barbara as a case study to tie historical, cultural, and social threads into the fabric of environmental discourse. This perspective illuminates how environmentalism is sometimes domesticated into a mechanism for maintaining community boundaries rather than fostering expansive, inclusive ecological stewardship. Her work thereby challenges the dominant narratives of environmentalism as a uniformly progressive or egalitarian movement.
Understanding ownership environmentalism also requires contextualizing it within the political economy of housing and development. During the mid-20th century, federal policies notably encouraged home ownership, often codifying systemic inequalities through racially restrictive covenants and zoning laws. Environmentalism in affluent neighborhoods became enmeshed in these exclusionary practices, a dynamic underexplored in mainstream environmental history. The result is a persistent tension between environmental protection and social justice, a dichotomy that modern movements continue to grapple with.
In sum, Pollyanna Rhee’s analysis exposes a critical gap in the environmental movement’s legacy: an environmentalism that often prioritizes private property and local interests over comprehensive social and environmental justice. Her work calls for reexamining how environmental values are socially constructed and mobilized, particularly in affluent communities. It challenges readers, scholars, and activists to reflect on the intersection of environmental health, community identity, and structural inequality, pushing toward an inclusive and equitable framing of ecological stewardship.
Subject of Research: The intersection of environmentalism, property ownership, and social justice, with a case study on the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill’s impact on environmental attitudes.
Article Title: The Domestication of Environmentalism: How Affluent Communities Shape and Limit the Modern Environmental Movement
News Publication Date: Not explicitly stated in the source content.
Web References:
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Landscape Architecture Department
- Pollyanna Rhee’s faculty profile
- Book “Natural Attachments: The Domestication of American Environmentalism, 1920–1970”
Image Credits: Courtesy Pollyanna Rhee
Keywords: Environmental movement, ownership environmentalism, Santa Barbara oil spill, environmental justice, property rights, social hierarchy, environmental history, community identity, landscape architecture, environmental policy, urban development, social exclusion
