翻译！英译中

Question

A secondhypothesis, which also works through the market but with the opposite result,might be called the market hypothesis. Under this idea, individuals who have ahigher level of income might afford to live in a more pristine or unpolluted location,whereas an individual who had lower willingness (or ability) to pay for alocation with lower pollution levels would end up in the more polluted locales. Hanna (2007) conducted ahedonic analysis of wages and housing values on emissions. She claims:
There are also good reasons to expectthat pollution levels are influenced by neighborhood incomes. If thewillingness to pay for a clean environment is increasing in income, incomegroups will be sorted into residential locations according to pollution levels,with the rich living in cleaner areas, ceteris paribus (Hanna, 2007,pp. 102–103).
Hanna finds astatistically significant and negative estimate of the relationship betweenpollution and non-wage income,“consistent with an endogenous sorting of income groups by pollution levels”(p. 111) (Contrary to the trade-off hypothesis, however, she finds no evidencethat pollution has an influence upon wage and salary incomes). Income sortingsuch as this would result in wealthy people living in less polluted areas,whereas poorer people would live in more polluted regions. Inequalities inincome and pollution would thus be additive. Although the result might appearunjust, some would argue that no injustice has taken place, as individuals aresimply expressing their preferences through the market ( Banzhaf, 2008).
A thirdhypothesis, resulting in the same pattern as the market hypothesis but leadingto a separate set of policy implications, is the environmental justicehypothesis, familiar to those conversant with the environmental justiceliterature. Under such a hypothesis, polluting facilities will tend to chooselocations based upon the likelihood (or lack thereof) of facing politicalopposition from residents. As poor (or low power) areas will tend to expressless political resistance, for various reasons, polluting firms will tend tolocate in low-income areas and/or regions with a large minority population. Wewould again expect inequalities in income and pollution to be additive, but thepolicy implications of such a distribution would call for government action (Hamilton,1995).

Answer 1

一个secondhypothesis，这也致力于通过市场而是相反的结果，可以被称为市场假说。根据这一思路，谁拥有的收入水平ahigher人可能买得起住在一个更纯净无污染或位置，而个人谁具有较低的意愿（或能力）为alocation较低的污染程度缴纳最终会在空气污染较为严重的语言环境。汉纳（2007）进行了排放工资和住房价值ahedonic分析。她声称：
也有充分的理由expectthat污染水平是由居委会收入的影响。如果thewillingness支付清洁的环境是增加收入，incomegroups将被整理成住宅的位置，根据污染程度，具有丰富的生活更清洁的地区，其他条件不变（汉娜，2007年，第102-103）。
汉娜发现的关系betweenpollution和非工资收入astatistically显著和负面的估计“，与收入群体的污染水平产生内源性的排序相一致”（第111页）（相反的权衡假说，然而，她发现没有evidencethat污染有对工资，薪金收入的影响）。收入sortingsuch因为这会导致居住在污染较少地区的富人，而穷人会生活在空气污染较为严重的地区。不平等inincome从而污染是添加剂。虽然结果可能appearunjust，有人会说，没有任何不公平事件发生，作为个人aresimply通过市场（Banzhaf，2008年）表达自己的喜好。
一个thirdhypothesis，导致相同的模式随着市场假说，但leadingto一套独立的政策影响，是环境justicehypothesis，熟悉的那些熟悉的环境justiceliterature。在这样一个假说，污染设施将倾向于基于从居民面对politicalopposition的可能性（或缺乏）chooselocations。由于差（或低功率）区域将倾向于expressless政治阻力，由于种种原因，污染企业往往会在tolocate低收入地区和/或地区的大型少数民族人口。 Wewould再次预计收入和污染的不平等是添加剂，但这样的分配thepolicy影响将呼吁政府采取行动（汉密尔顿，1995年）。
有些单词是错的。