The Bronx has been historically marginalized due to the “redlining” phenomenon, targeting areas based on race, ethnicity, and class in the mid-1900s. This has led to little economic, social, and political support from the government and other agencies. This paper investigates the environmental funding for New York City boroughs and compares the history of redlining and its connection to the environmental condition of the Bronx today. Environmental racism is a form of oppression that many low-income communities of color face today, such as high asthma rates, pollution from massive expressways, and the over abundance of waste treatment plants and incinerators. The Bronx River, once a rich area for biodiversity, has suffered significant loss due to the city’s transformation into an urban area. Environmental justice activists have prioritized the Bronx River and its environment, with the Bronx Zoo and New York Botanical Gardens being the main preserves of Bronx environmental history. Environmental racism has its roots in the Civil Rights Movement, where leaders like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X fought against poor living conditions, health issues, and unequal workforce situations. Laura Westra and Peter Wenz argue that environmentalist movements should focus on natural and animal conservation and protection, rather than addressing racist environmental practices in communities of color (Vizzard, 2015).

To address the challenges faced by marginalized communities, the government and American people need to support institutional change and address the root causes of environmental racism and degradation. Community-based approaches are the best way to combat a “disease,” and government intervention is crucial in empowering these communities. The success of two Community-Based Partnerships (CBPR) partnerships that integrated health concerns into a broader social movement agenda to alleviate social, racial, and economic injustices. The Men on the Move (MOTM) initiative, initiated under the Clinton-era Conversation on Race, focuses on reducing chronic disease and addressing cultural and social identity domination, non-recognition, disrespect, and the right to equality in decision-making processes. Both partnerships used recognition/identity politics, procedural justice, and distributive justice approaches to build the foundation for structural justice approaches. The study highlights four major lessons learned from both partnerships: 1) the importance of historical understanding of racial and social context, 2) the role of context in shaping partnership social justice strategies, 3) the role of national funding, and 4) the connection between CBPR and social justice movements. Both partnerships validated community participation and shared funding with community-based organizations, allowing them to process privilege and power dynamics inherent in community-academic partnerships (Devia, 2017).