Waste Incineration and Public Health (2000) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Social Issues and Community Interactions
Social Issues and Community Interactions
Pages 217-245
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 217... ...
The committee recognized at the outset of its study that the social, economic, and psychological effects for a particular waste-incineration facility might be favorable, neutral, or adverse depending on many site-specific conditions and characteristics. However, the current state of understanding for many issues considered in this chapter is such that little or no data specific to waste incineration were available for analysis by the committee.
|
From page 218... ...
Much of the following discussion is based on anecdotal evidence related to social issues posed by controversial waste facilities, including waste incinerators. It is clear that much more empirical research is needed on the socioeconomic impacts of waste-incineration facilities on their host areas, but for this research to be feasible on a large scale, detailed socioeconomic data will need to be gathered routinely before and during the operation of such facilities.
|
From page 219... ...
Despite those features, the views of other citizens who are inclined to oppose waste incineration need to be heard and understood. If not, conflicts can intensify and they can increase the time and expense of developing waste incinerators that might be socially beneficial.
|
From page 220... ...
Property Value Impacts ~Y~ v ~ ~ _% 4,:_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx~Xxxx~ Air Impacts FIGURE 7-2 Hypothetical example of overlay mapping of different types of impacts of an incineration facility.
|
From page 221... ...
Both those subjects are introduced below and are addressed in greater detail later in this chapter under the heading Risk Communication. The Affected Area and Local Decision-Making Typically, those making decisions or entering into negotiations about an incineration facility's location, size, and so on are the elected or appointed officials of the jurisdiction that the planned facility would be in, such as the mayor and city council or the county executive and county commissioners.
|
From page 222... ...
, or it might lack the social cohesiveness to have any communities. If the affected area is not mirrored by a single community, informal interactions by facility proponents and regulators with members of the affected area may be more difficult to conduct.
|
From page 223... ...
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF INCINERATION FACILITIES A list of possible socioeconomic effects of an incineration facility is provided in Table 7-1. (It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss the listed effects in detail.)
|
From page 224... ...
259) concluded that the Union County solid-waste incinerator in Rahway City, New Jersey, "will lead to rapid deterioration of the neighborhood because private investors with other choices will choose not to invest in a neighborhood with a prominent technological hazard, except perhaps to site LULUs [locally unwanted land uses 1~" A waste-incineration facility may affect local public finances favorably insofar as it adds to local tax revenues or decreases the cost of local-waste disposal.
|
From page 225... ...
1992~; they remain a source of major concern for some people living near an existing waste facility, such as a solid-waste incinerator (Zeiss 1991~. Psychological Impacts People in the surrounding area may be psychologically affected by the prospect or reality of an incineration facility in their midst.
|
From page 226... ...
Furthermore, some individuals opposing an incineration facility may feel offended by the notion that such stressful and time consuming efforts may have favorable psychological benefits. Social Impacts In addition to having favorable or adverse effects on the economic, physical, and mental well-being of individual people in the affected area, a proposed or existing incineration facility can affect the area's social fabric.
|
From page 227... ...
The facility may continue to have adverse health effects, but it will not be likely to precipitate major new socioeconomic impacts; instead, to the extent that it continues to affect the character of the surrounding area and its residents, it may contribute to feelings of either acceptance or quiet powerlessness and alienation. If, however, major alterations are proposed for an existing facility (especially an expansion of the volume or types of wastes that it will handle)
|
From page 228... ...
Given those concerns, members of the public often raise fundamental questions that are not easily addressed in siting processes or risk-management decision-making. For example, they may ask: Do we as a society really need the technology of incineration?
|
From page 229... ...
Future risk-communication efforts will be undertaken in the context of continuing, intense social distrust and will have to be designed accordingly. Need One of the first questions likely to be asked by people in the prospective host area of a waste-incineration facility (or other waste facility)
|
From page 230... ...
" Siting a facility, such as an incinerator, presents an inherent and inescapable need to address equity: Whatever site is chosen, potential health risks and other adverse impacts are necessarily borne by a relatively small group, but the benefit (waste treatment or disposal) can accrue to a larger population.
|
From page 231... ...
. Environmental Justice When an incineration facility is placed in a disadvantaged community, concerns about fairness are likely to become more pressing.
|
From page 232... ...
. However, even if it were determined that facilities like waste incinerators contribute only marginally to increased environmental degradation, they may be regarded by their host areas as presenting unacceptable additional increases in risk.
|
From page 233... ...
Poor risk communication will almost certainly exacerbate public concerns. As noted by the National Research Council Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, "even though good risk communication cannot always be expected to improve a situation, poor risk communication will nearly always make it worse" (NRC 1989a)
|
From page 234... ...
Even well-meaning efforts to inform and educate the public may be viewed as, at best, attempts to bring public perceptions into line with expert assessments of risk and, at worst, attempts to obfuscate the issues and belittle public concerns. Some government and industry representatives see risk communication merely as a means to a particular end (in this context, a siting decision)
|
From page 235... ...
Trying to change public perceptions, attitudes, and concerns through education to bring them more into line with expert views of the issues is doomed to disappoint; the public has a rich, multidimensional view of risk that is extremely resistant to change (Kahneman and Tversky 1982; Hadden 1991) , and risk controversies often result from deeper debates about the relationship between technology and society (Ruckelshaus 1985; Otway 1987; Wynne 1992~.
|
From page 236... ...
DAD failed because it alienatTABLE 7-2 Some Typical Guidelines for Risk Communication According to Sandman (1985) Acknowledge community power to stop siting process.
|
From page 237... ...
approach or legislated siting procedures." They also found that "a siting process that encourages public participation and contributes to the formation of a view that the facility best meets community needs, explains
|
From page 238... ...
All possible approaches should be provisional and up for discussion; otherwise, the community will soon recognize that it has little useful input into the decision-making process. Once members of the community and the developers of a proposed facility acknowledge that the community has the power to stop the siting process, the discussion can proceed on a more equal footing.
|
From page 239... ...
As noted above, members of the public may also be concerned about quality of life (such as increased noise and traffic) , socioeconomic effects (such as employment opportunities and property values)
|
From page 240... ...
Information provided by members of the public should straightforwardly articulate the values of those speaking or writing. Information about the community and about facility effects that have been noticed (such as truck traffic, smoke, and lower property values)
|
From page 241... ...
Psychometric studies of risk have found controllability to be one of the most-important attributes that shape risk perception (Slovic 1987~. In siting and operating incineration facilities, measures of public oversight and control can be incorporated in various ways from the initial planning and design of a facility through its operation and eventual decommissioning.
|
From page 242... ...
Those are daunting questions, not easily resolved, but they should be tackled to ensure that interactions among the facility developer, the operator, regulators, the local government, and the affected community are substantive. CONCLUSIONS Assessing Socioeconomic Impacts During and after the siting and building of a waste incineration facility, it may have various effects on members of the surrounding area in addition to physical health effects.
|
From page 243... ...
There is little reliable information on the socioeconomic impacts of wasteincineration facilities on their host areas. This chapter has identified issues that appear to merit attention, but these issues will not necessarily arise in the case of every incineration facility.
|
From page 244... ...
To enable large-scale empirical research on the socioeconomic impacts of waste-incineration facilities on their host areas, detailed socioeconomic data should be gathered routinely before and during the operation of such facilities. The boundaries of an area potentially affected by a waste incinerator should not be defined at the outset by a particular community's political boundaries or jurisdiction.
|
From page 245... ...
should make the case for the new or expanded facility, especially if a waste combustor is not used solely within a manufacturing facility to incinerate waste on site. If a new or expanded facility is contemplated, local citizens might consider conducting their own assessments of the proposed facility and its effects through various approaches, including, for example, hiring independent consultants that members of the community trust, seeking technical-assistance grants from the government, or finding technical advisors who are acceptable to both sides.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.