SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE:
A GUIDEBOOK FOR EFFECTIVE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
iii
PREFACE
The conflict over solid waste management continues to escalate in
many parts of the country and is likely to be a pressing public policy
issue throughout the 1990's. Even with increased source reduction,
recycling, and composting, new waste disposal facilities will be needed
to manage our growing waste stream. Finding new sites, however,
promises to be extraordinarily difficult.
Much attention has been paid to the so-called NIMBY (not in my
backyard) syndrome, which portrays local residents as emotional
opponents of new sites while often ignoring the complexity of the
underlying issues. The intense political conflict in local communities
centers on important questions of the appropriate use of technology,
acceptable levels of risk, and the distribution of decision-making
power in a democratic society.
The challenge faced by public officials is to find sites that are both
technically sound and socially acceptable. A key to recent success
stories around the country has been the effective use of public
involvement. Public officials and citizens have found that they can
work together to manage our solid waste and to protect public health
and the environment.
Public officials are the primary audience for this guidebook, but
citizens and industry professionals may benefit from reading it as well.
This project is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
ongoing efforts to improve the management of municipal solid waste
nationwide. The EPA's Office of Solid Waste also recently produced
the Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management to help public
officials evaluate various waste management options.
This guidebook was prepared by Michael J. Regan and William H.
Desvousges of the Research Triangle Institute and James L. Creighton
of Creighton & Creighton. Direction for this work from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency was provided by Greg Michaels,
Risk Communication Program, Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation, and by Terry Grogan, Office of Solid Waste. The
following EPA personnel contributed helpful insights: Ann Fisher,
Truett de Geare, Lynn Luderer, Janette Hansen, and Ed Klein.
-------
iv
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Public officials and waste management professionals around the
country provided advice and comments. In addition, a draft of the
guidebook was discussed in Washington, DC, with a distinguished
peer review team;
George Britton
Deputy City Manager
Phoenix, Arizona
Caron Chess
Environmental Communication
Research Program
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ
Beulah A. Coughenour
City-County Councillor
Indianapolis & Marion County
Indianapolis, IN
Richard Hays
Director
Waste Management Department
City of San Diego
San Diego, CA
Reid Lifset
Institution for Social and
Policy Studies
Yale University
New Haven, CT
Shelley Lotenburg
Involved Citizen
Westbury, NY
Glenn Lovin
Resource Recovery
Institute
National League of Cities
Washington, DC
Moses McCall
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Atlanta, GA
John Sherman
Director
Tennessee Environmental Council
Nashville, TN
Sandy Tuttle
National Solid Waste Management
Association
Washington, DC
Practical experience indicates that improving siting decisions in solid
waste management can be extremely difficult. Nevertheless, the
positive response received from potential users of this guidebook is an
encouraging sign that public involvement can serve as a productive
policy tool.
-------
SITES -FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
V
CONTENTS
PREFACE r...... „ iii
FACILITY SITING AND THE SOLID WASTE DILEMMA 1
Nationwide Dimensions of the Trash Problem 1
EPA's Integrated Waste Management Strategy^,., 3
Complex Problems of Facility Siting : 5
A New Siting Strategy 7
THE SITING PROCESS '."..:.;...'„.''.':'!;?..:.l..:.'..'.'.?.:V. 9
Redefining the Siting Process;;.....,.;^.:.....,.....;;?:.;..... 9
Most Frequent Controversial Issues ....'............... 10
The Siting Controversy: An Introduction to Risk and Political Conflict 13
BUILDING A SITING STRATEGY 17
Effective Public Involvement: Examples from Successful Sitings 17
Lessons from Successful Sitings .....„„. 20
WHO IS THE PUBLIC? .'. .v:;.;..;.....^.:.i.:. 23
Thinking About the Public ..........'...........I.'. 23
Who Is "The Public" for the Siting of a Solid Waste Facility? 24
Different Levels of Involvement ...................„;...... 2§
How the Public Changes Throughout the Siting Process 27
Obligations to the "General Public"...................„....,. 29
INCLUDING THE PUBLIC IN THE PROCESS 31
;. Developing a Public Involvement Plan .:....i;......-^:[.i..., 31
The Public Involveme'nt Thought Process ....:.!;:......;... 34
TECHNIQUES FOR INVOLVING THE PUBLIC i.;;.:.^:.:.^. 41
Thinking About Techniques l.:..;.:.::..:^; 41
Information Techniques 42
Participation Techniques 49
Putting It All Together 57
-------
VI
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
CONTENTS (continued)
8
10
11
COMMUNICATING RISKS MORE EFFECTIVELY 61
The Role of Risk Communication in the Siting Process 61
Developing a Risk Communication Program 63
Building Strong Working Relationships With the Media 71
BUILDING CREDIBILITY FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION 75
Understanding the Conflict 75
Steps to Build Credibility 77
The Limitations of Actions to Build Credibility 82
MITIGATING NEGATIVE IMPACTS /. 83
General Principles of Mitigation 83
Common Mitigation Issues for Solid Waste Facilities 86
Planning for Mitigation 92
EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SITING PROCESS 95
Thinking About Evaluation 95
Developing an Evaluation Strategy 96
SUMMING IT ALL UP 101
BIBLIOGRAPHY 103
APPENDIX: SAMPLE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 105
-------
FACILITY SITING AND THE SOLID WASTE DILEMMA
CHAPTER 1
FACILITY SITING AND THE SOLID WASTE DILEMMA
Highlights:
• During the 1980's, the trash problem emerged as a potential crisis in many areas of the
country because of increasing amounts of municipal solid waste, shrinking landfill
capacity, rising costs, and strong public opposition to new solid waste facility sitings.
•, Solid waste management requires an integrated approach that includes source
reduction, recycling, waste combustion, and land disposal.
• Research into the siting impasse reveals that the problem is not simply a technical
one—it is also economic, social, and political.
• Effective public involvement should be the centerpiece of a comprehensive siting
process that also includes risk communication, mitigation, and evaluation activities.
Nationwide Dimensions of the Trash Problem
By all measurements, the United States produces more trash than any other
country. In 1986, we generated almost 160 million tons of paper, glass,
metals, plastics, food and yard wastes, rubber, and other wastes—an
80 percent increase since 1960 (EPA, 1989). Per-capita figures show that we
produce an average of 1,300 pounds per year of municipal solid waste,
significantly higher than other leading industrial nations.
Despite a tenfold increase in recycling and combustion during the last 30
years, net discards of municipal solid waste have continued to increase.
Estimates suggest that by the year 2000 we will be producing one-fifth more
solid waste than we do today—or roughly 193 million tons per year (see
Figure 1-1).
-------
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Gross Discards, Recovery, and Net Discards of Municipal Solid Waste
Within the next few
years, nearly one-
third of existing
landfill capacity will
have been eliminated.
1960 1965 1970 .1975 1980
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd., 1988, p. 20.
1985 1990 1995 2000
Figure 1-1
Disposal costs are skyrocketing, especially for more crowded urban areas. In
1989, communities in spacious Nevada paid as little as $6 per ton for disposal,
while some communities on the East Coast paid over $130 per ton to ship the
waste hundreds of miles away. Higher transportation costs and land
acquisition costs in the future threaten to make a bad situation even worse.
The trash problem is a top priority because our capacity to "process" solid
waste is declining dramatically. Within the next few years, nearly one-third of
our existing landfill capacity will have been eliminated as landfills reach
capacity, become environmentally unsafe, and face closure because of public
opposition.
As landfill capacity dwindles, declining competition and uncertainty may
induce operators to increase user fees. Essential public services in education,
transportation, and fire and police protection have suffered from strained
municipal budgets as local and county governments struggle to meet higher
waste disposal costs.
Some experts say that we live,in a "throwaway" society that generates an
inordinate amount of waste from unnecessary sources and that we disregard
alternative disposal methods. 'For example, more than 40 percent of our solid
waste comes from paper products, much of which could be potentially
-------
FACILITY SITING AND THE SOLID WASTE DILEMMA
recycled (see Figure 1-2). In addition, yard wastes make up nearly 18 percent
of our discards but could be readily used for compost. Meanwhile, today's
intensive marketing efforts and our fast-food lifestyle produce more containers
and packaging. Our consumer habits may save time and reduce hassle, but
they also produce significant social costs.
Converging interests
form coalitions with a
simple agenda: Stop
the project!
Materials Discarded into the Municipal Waste Stream in 1986
(Percentage of Total)
Miso, Inorganic Wastes—1.6%
Yard Wastes—-17.9%
Food Wastes—7.9%
Rubber and Leather,
Textiles, Wood,
Other-^8.
Plastips—6.5%
Metals—8,7%
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd., 1§88, p. 8.
Paper and
Paperboard—41.0%
Glass—8.2%
Figure 1-2
Efforts to site new landfills and waste-to-energy facilities have been met with
mounting opposition from community groups. They might be a group of
homeowners near a potential site, a local environmental group, or a small
business association, but these converging interests form coalitions with a
simple agenda: Stop the project! And in many cases, the local policymaking
process becomes paralyzed by the intense hostility surrounding the waste
management debate,;
EPA's Integrated Waste Management Strategy
In the past, siting new municipal solid waste facilities was the primary option
for managing solid waste. But population growth, economic development,
and politics have altered the context for siting new facilities.
Communities all around the country are looking at new approaches to the solid
waste dilemma. An important distinction is that the overriding objective of
-------
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
The overriding
objective of the siting
process Is the
effectiveness of the
resulting waste
management strategy.
the siting process—and the best indicator of success—is not only the siting of
a new facility, it is the overall effectiveness of the resulting waste
management strategy. An effective siting process, for example, might produce
an aggressive recycling program that reduces the new capacity needed for a
proposed landfill. Or, the hazard to ground water might be reduced through a
source reduction program that removes a particularly toxic chemical from the
waste stream.
In the 1989 report, The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action, the EPA
presented its Integrated Waste Management Strategy to address the growing
supply of municipal solid waste. Integrated waste management refers to "the
complementary use of a variety of waste management practices to safely and
effectively handle the municipal solid waste stream with the least adverse
impact on human health and the environment." Figure 1-3 outlines the
components of the EPA strategy, and each component is highlighted briefly
below.
EPA's Integrated Waste Management Strategy
Source Reduction
(including reuse
of products)
Recycling of Materials Waste Combustion
(including composting) (with energy recovery)
Land Disposal
•mini
<± "+7
Figure 1-3.
Source reduction minimizes both the volume and level of toxics in products
at the manufacturing level and extends the life of those products. For
example, removing toxics such as lead and cadmium increases the safety of
recycling, land disposal, and combustion. The design and manufacturing
industry can provide a leadership role in producing products that are less toxic,
generate less waste, have longer useful life spans, are reusable or repairable, or
have other qualities that enhance waste management.
-------
FACILITY SITING AND THE SOLID WASTE DILEMMA
Recycling diverts potentially large volumes of wastes from landfills and
combustors. Linking recycling and other public policies, however, is crucial
for an effective recycling program. For example, market development for
used newsprint is necessary in implementing community recycling programs.
Also, although public support for recycling is increasing dramatically, the
public often opposes the siting of recycling centers and transfer stations.
Nonetheless, advances in technology will continue to make recycling,
including composting of yard wastes, a valuable management tool for public
officials.
Waste combustion can be a viable waste management alternative for many
communities. To increase the viability of this option, it is important to ensure
that combustors are designed, operated, and controlled to minimize risks to
human health and the environment from both air emissions and ash.
Technology now exists that satisfies the safety objectives stated above—
although some groups are still unconvinced of the safety of these measures.
Land disposal is used for the majority of our nation's solid waste and will
continue to be essential in the future. Although increasing source reduction
and recycling minimizes the volume and toxicity of waste going to landfills,
we must concentrate more .effort on ensuring the protection of human health
and the environment.
No one of these components is sufficient by itself to manage municipal solid
waste effectively. Although the appropriate "mix" varies from community to
community, this strategy provides an important conceptual tool for setting
priorities and planning for waste management. Developing a successful waste
management strategy will require a cooperative effort among citizens,
manufacturers, waste managers, and public officials. ,
Complex Problems of Facility Siting
This guidebook reflects current research into the policymaking process,
drawing on experiences from both successful and unsuccessful siting efforts
around the country. Several key findings highlight the complex range of siting
issues, each of which poses a major challenge to public officials.
The siting problem is not simply a technical one—it is social, economic, and
political. Public opposition to landfills or incinerators is not always generated
by the same siting issue, nor is opposition limited to any single issue in a
-------
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
given case. Public officials must address a complex set of issues if a
constructive dialogue is to take place (see Figure 1-4). For example, even if
homeowners are convinced of the reliability of the facility's safety features,
they still may oppose the project because of the potential effect on property
values.
The Multidimensional Nature of Facility Siting Issues
Environmental and health risks (e.g., ground-water pollution, air quality, and
transportation of materials)
Economic issues (e.g., effect on property values, construction and operating
costs, impact on local industry, and compensation plans)
Social issues (e.g., equity in site choices, effect on community image, aesthetics,
alternative and future land uses)
Political issues (e.g., local elections, vested interests of community groups,
responsibility for site management, and local control)
Figure 1-4
Although community opposition to certain issues can be anticipated, each case
and each site engenders a unique combination of community attitudes and
actions—each requiring a different set of skills. Public officials, therefore,
must be flexible and creative in building a successful siting strategy.
The public fears and mistrusts technical information and the people who
communicate it. Technical information plays a critical role in siting, but can
be seen by citizens as a tool that is manipulated by vested interests. Many
public officials and waste professionals can testify to having their credibility
attacked at public meetings or by the press. Some critics charge that
subjective biases are hidden behind the jargon of official studies. The mistrust
of technical information has deep roots and public officials must take careful
steps to rebuild its credibility.
Many citizens have lost confidence in the decision-making process for solid
waste management and now demand full access and involvement. Citizens
object to the process by which land use decisions have been made in the past.
They are concerned about past facility mismanagement, the credibility of
public officials, and the growing pressures on the environment from our
burgeoning society. As a result, community groups have successfully delayed
and defeated efforts to site new facilities and are now a permanent part of the
political and social dynamic surrounding the siting process.
-------
FACILITY SITING AND THE SOLID WASTE DILEMMA
A New Siting Strategy
Each siting effort requires a siting strategy tailored to the specific needs and
concerns of the community. Nevertheless, experience from other successful
sitings suggests that effective public involvement should be the centerpiece of
a comprehensive siting strategy that also includes risk communication,
mitigation, and evaluation activities (see Figure 1-5). Below, each component
is highlighted briefly to familiarize readers with the concepts.
Sites for Our Solid Waste:
A Guidebook for Effective Public Involvement
Introduction
A New Approach
to Siting MSW Facilities
1. Facility Siting and the Solid Waste Dilemma
2. The Siting Process
3. Building a Siting Strategy
-The Siting Strategy -
Public
Involvement
Risk
Communication
Mitigation
Evaluation
4. Who is the
Public?
5. Including the
Public in the
Process
6. Techniques for
Involving the
Public
7. Communicating
Risks More
Effectively
8. Building Credibility
for Technical
Information
9. Mitigating
Negative
Impacts
10. Evaluating
Effectiveness
of the Siting
Process
Figure 1-5
Public involvement can bring trust and credibility back to the siting process
but is not a guarantee for success. Mechanisms for public involvement
include task forces, technical and citizen advisory committees, and public
meetings. Public involvement is a strategic venture that requires careful
planning and great skill. The success of the siting process depends on
dedicated public officials and the constructive participation of an informed
opposition. Token participation often backfires by fueling fears and mistrust.
-------
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Risk communication can improve the quality of information exchanged
among participants in the siting process. Technical studies play a central role
in finding a suitable site—but the general public is wary of these studies. Risk
communication uses existing public involvement mechanisms to increase
people's trust in decision makers and the technical information that they
present. Specific risk messages can be conveyed strategically through the
general distribution of public education materials or through communication
channels such as the media. But risk communication also permits citizens to
convey information to public officials about their values, preferences, and
priorities. The goal of risk communication is not to persuade the public to
change its position—it is to inform all participants in the siting process.
Mitigation can offset the negative impacts of a project, thereby reducing
public opposition. The waste management team should be prepared to listen
to the public's concerns and to negotiate the site selection or design of the
facility. Impacts on property values, air quality, ground water, traffic, or
safety can be lessened through responsive negotiation.
Evaluation should be integrated with ongoing project operations to provide
timely feedback to project leaders throughout the siting process. Using focus
groups, questionnaires, and other techniques, project leaders can measure the
effectiveness of public education materials and communication programs.
Evaluation can be cost-effective, improve public involvement and risk
communication programs, and reduce the likelihood of unanticipated conflict.
-------
THE SITING PROCESS
CHAPTER 2
THE SITING PROCESS
Highlights:
• The design of the siting process fundamentally affects its credibility in the eyes of the
public.
• To plan for effective public involvement, think of the siting process as three distinct
phases—planning, site selection and project design, and implementation.
• Any stage of the siting process may be subjected to intense public debate.
• Most of the controversial siting issues spring from political conflict and concerns for
safety.
Redefining the Siting Process
The facility siting process consists of a structured set of policies that guide the
implementation of waste management goals within the social and political
context—or the community opposition. In the traditional siting process—
sometimes called the Decide, Announce, Defend model—decision making for
municipal solid waste was centralized in the hands of a few key individuals.
But over the last two decades, nongovernmental interests have become more
involved in local decision making and citizens have demonstrated that they
will not accept behind-the-scenes decisions on solid waste management.
The design of the siting process fundamentally affects its credibility in the
eyes of the public. Not only does a closed decision-making process waste
time and resources, it jeopardizes professional credibility. And once the trust
and confidence of the public is lost, it is almost impossible to retrieve.
-------
JO SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Because the traditional siting process is obsolete in most parts of the country,
public officials have tried to experiment with new policies and procedures.
This guidebook outlines a siting process consisting of three related phases—
planning, site selection and facility design* and implementation. Any stage of
the siting process may be subjected to intense public debate. Reviewing the
major steps in facility siting (see Figure 2-1) shows that important decisions
are made very early in the planning phase.
Applying the siting framework is useless, however, without understanding the
activities that are needed for an adequate siting process. Subsequent chapters
of the guidebook show how to incorporate public involvement, risk
communication, mitigationj and evaluation activities into each step in the
siting process. ,
Most Frequent Controversial Issues
A number of controversial issues offer insight into the factors that contribute
to the public's opposition to new solid waste facilities. The planning phase is
the first opportunity for different interests and groups to mobilize support or
opposition to a siting proposal. Most Of the controversial issues are
inextricably linked to political conflict and concerns for safety.
Phase): Planning
Identifying the Problem—Siting conflict can be especially intense after older
facilities are closed because of negative environmental or health
consequences. Officials connected to mismanaged waste programs, even
when private contractors are to blame, find winning broad public support for
new solutions difficult. So, although disposal capacity shrinks daily, some
cities have extended the use of existing landfills or have resorted to shipping
waste to other communities at a very high cost to local taxpayers.
Designing the Siting Strategy—This guidebook has introduced the reader to
the essential elements of the siting controversy—fear, mistrust, and political
conflict—each of which is directly related to the siting strategy. Public
officials develop the siting strategy as a set of activities or policies for siting
the facility. The traditional siting strategy, which excludes interested parties
from participating at key points in the siting process, generates controversy
over both "process" and site-specific issues;
-------
THE SITING PROCESS
The Three-Phase Siting Framework
Prtas^ls Planning , . -'" , "
• Identifying, the Problem
• Designing the Siting , , .•-•-.
Strategy ' : "' ; ' °
• Assessing Alternative's
• Choosing Site Feasibility
Criteria
Recognizing the growing waste stream, rising
costs, and capacity shortfall.
Planning and integrating public involvement,
risk communication, mitigation, and evaluation
activities. .'.
Researching, debating','' and choosing among the
options: recycling, source reduction, incineration,
and land disposal.
Studying population densities, hydro-
geological conditions, and socioeconomic
, • ;. . - . ,.- ,,^;,-.:\. ,, ^•^F' - -*•'-' '•• ' •
,Plia,se 11,; Site Selection and Facility design
• Selecting the Site
i •" •'•••' '..-•' -.-"•..• •' -.•:-: ;r -4
• Designing the Facility
;-- . ."•;"•-• ••••<•:,.•'•
Performing initial site screening and
designation; acquiring land; conducting permit
procedures; developing environmental
impact statement.
Choosing technologies, dimensions, safety
characteristics, restrictions, mitigation plans,
compensation arrangements, and construction.
^w
, Ph^s^ Jit; Implementation v "" '
• Operation ;
* '«; . *• s ' ' .'
• Management
• Closure and Future
Land Uses / .
Monitoring incoming waste; managing waste
disposal; performing visual and lab testing;
controlling noise, litter, and odor.
Monitoring operations and safety features;
performing random testing of waste; enforcing
permit-conditions;-
Closing arid securing the facility; deciding on
future land.uses; and performing continued
monitoring. ....
Figure 2-1
-------
12
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Early In the siting
process, choices must
bo made to determine
the waste management
strategy and whether a
new facility Is needed.
Assessing Alternatives—Public officials often choose land disposal as a
primary waste management option, but it is only one of many management
technologies available. Many environmental groups actively oppose all
landfills and incinerators, advocating only source reduction, composting,
and/or aggressive recycling. In addition, broader coalitions argue that
increasing disposal capacity provides a disincentive to changing waste
disposal behavior or causes unacceptable impacts on the community. Public
officials may find themselves in extended, often extremely political, debate
over the merits of various technologies. During this stage, however, choices
are made that will determine the waste management strategy and whether a
new facility is needed.
Choosing Site Feasibility Criteria—Even when the decision to site a new
facility has been made, the big issue remains: Where will it go? The criteria
that determine the suitability of a potential site, such as hydrogeological
conditions, socioeconomic characteristics, or population densities, may
implicitly mean placing the burden of the facility on certain constituencies—
exposing them to more noise, traffic, or pollution than other populations.
Sometimes these constituencies are rural or impoverished constituencies who
tend to be underrepresented in the traditional decision-making process.
Nevertheless, the support of a large coalition from within or outside the
community can be mobilized in response to equity issues or against vested
interests.
For example, 400 angry residents from Maricopa County, Arizona, attended a
public meeting in 1984 to voice their opposition to an inventory of potential
landfill sites. Although the population of the potential community numbered
only a few hundred, they were supported strongly by a broader coalition of
county residents who were concerned about the effects on ground-water quality.
Phase II: Site Selection and Facility Design
Selecting the Site—Citizens will almost certainly question the validity of
technical work, such as exclusionary screening. Also, community members
will be concerned about negative effects on property values, safety, air quality,
noise, and litter or about broader issues such as the impact on community
prestige. Some groups may even demand compensation arrangements or other
forms of guarantees against negative impacts. For example, neighbors of a
potential landfill in Florida called for a guarantee on property values as a
condition for their support early in the siting process. Public opposition
increases as the site selection time draws near.
-------
THE SITING PROCESS
The reliability and
track record of the
operator are important
concerns during site
selection and facility
design.
Designing the Facility—Although a final site may be selected, the project
design must be approved by state agencies that are usually responsive to
political pressure from community groups. Safety features of the facility
usually dominate the public debate. Ground-water contamination and air
pollution are by far the issues most frequently requiring attention, although
noise, Utter, arid traffic issues also appear. Technical information on the
reliability of "impermeable" liners, leak detection systems, monitoring wells,
and pollution control devices may be disputed by the public or other experts.
The reliability and track record of the operator are important concerns during
site selection or facility design. Groups may call for business records,
financial checks, or even police records of specific individuals. The public
may also debate the types of wastes allowed for the site and whether the site
should be restricted to local haulers. Officials in Northampton, Massachusetts,
responded to local pressure, restricting the frequency of trips to the regional
landfill by non-local haulers.
Phase III: Implementation
Operation/Management—Operation and management plans for a facility
have an important influence on public attitudes toward the project. Citizens
sometimes demand strict monitoring and enforcement activities to ensure
compliance by haulers and operators, including local supervision of the
facility. Also, observers of several facilities in New York and New Jersey
have noted the important role of state agencies in supporting local
enforcement efforts, such as revoking disposal permits, testing wastes, and
monitoring air and ground water.
Closure and Future. Land Uses—No siting proposal is complete without
planning for closure and future land use. Some landfills, for example, have
had safety problems after closure, such as underground fires from methane
gas. The public often debates when and how to cap a landfill, how the land
should be used after closure, or how ground-water monitoring should be
maintained.
The Siting Controversy: An Introduction to Risk and Political Conflict
Public opposition to municipal solid waste facilities often centers on one key
theme: How safe are they? Think about the controversial issues presented
above; most issues are related to the safety concerns of the surrounding
-------
14
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
population. By familiarizing yourself with how risk perceptions are developed
and influenced, you will be better prepared to design a siting strategy that
gives the opposition information that they need to participate constructively.
For example, risks are often assessed differently by citizens and risk experts,
with the community empldying a. much broader definition of risk. Is the risk
voluntary or familiar? Can I do anything to lower my individual risk? How
close do I live to the facility? These are only some of the issues that affect
people's risk assessment and their willingness to accept a new municipal solid
waste facility.
Although It Is not
always obvious,
siting decisions are
Inherently political
because they Involve
s dispute over "who
gets what."
Although many technical studies intend to assess the risks to local
populations, non-experts have an inherent mistrust of technical information.
This mistrust is reinforced by conflict within the scientific community. For
example, technical experts hired by the community sometimes question the
methodology of the risk assessment study. Even industry experts disagree
over the effectiveness of the various incinerator technologies.
People use examples of technologies from unrelated disasters (for example,
Love Canal, Three Mile Island, Bhopal, or Prince William Sound) to reinforce
their mistrust of officials and technical experts. Some have argued that
technical studies employ a narrow definition of risk that fails to account for
the broad consequences of mismanagement or malfunction. Other citizens
have opposed technology on the grounds that unknown risks are a real threat.
These disagreements only augment the public's fears and decrease willingness
to accept the results of environmental impact studies or socioeconomic
studies.
Although it is not always obvious, siting decisions are inherently political
because they involve a dispute over "who gets what." For example, economic
efficiency tells us that a municipal solid waste facility should go where it
poses the least risk to the population, has the lowest operational costs, and
weighs opportunity costs of alternative land uses. But this line of reasoning
leads to a bias against rural areas or toward those already exposed to
undesirable land uses such as waste-water treatment plants or utilities. To
some extent, the choice of site selection criteria may predetermine who will
ultimately bear the burden of negative impacts.
-------
THE SITING PROCESS 15
Many controversial issues are further complicated by political concerns
because waste management programs require the support of influential
political figures. Regardless of the quality of the facility, this political support
can be dictated by electoral concerns of local and state politicians. Private
companies also have large stakes in the outcome of the siting process, and
their interests may lead to charges of bias, deceptions and dishonesty.
-------
-------
BUILDING A SITING STRATEGY 17
CHAPTERS
BUILDING A SITING STRATEGY
Highlights:
• Although no perfect siting model exists, the case studies presented below illustrate the
dynamics of the siting process and how public involvement and risk communication
can be integrated into a manageable siting strategy.
• Case 1: Northwest Regional Landfill, Maricopa County, Arizona
• Case 2: Hempstead Resource Recovery Facility, Hempstead, New York
• Lessons from successful sitings offer more insight into which strategies should be
pursued and how public officials can resolve particularly difficult issues.
Effective Public Involvement: Examples from Successful Sitings
This guidebook relies on experience from successful and unsuccessful sitings
across the country. The two case studies below illustrate several important
elements of the proposed siting strategy. They differ, however, in their
consideration of rural/urban issues and political forces, in their various
constraints, and in their final solutions. As you read, think about the dynamics
of the siting process and how public involvement and risk communication can
be integrated into a manageable framework.
-------
18
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Case 1: Northwest Regional Landfill
Maricopa County, Arizona
In 1984, officials from Maricopa County began negotiations with the private operator of
the county landfill in El Mirage to close the facility. Meanwhile, the City of Phoenix had
identified the need for a new landfill based on a growing waste stream and the closure of
a polluting landfill on the Salt River. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the
Phoenix city council agreed to a joint project in the northwestern Phoenix metropolitan
area.
Officials in Maricopa County did not envision much opposition given that the proposed
siting area consisted of desert or undeveloped farmland. A consulting firm was hired to
provide technical assistance for site selection. The County prepared an inventory of
potential sites that were opposed by several hundred angry residents at the first public
meeting. Officials responded to this opposition by expanding the study area and
implementing a public involvement program that gave residents an important role in the
decision-making process. Over the course of the following 18 months, public officials
reached a consensus with the citizens on many controversial issues.
A citizen advisory committee consisted of 28 people, including representatives of local
municipalities, area residents, homeowners' associations, real estate developers, the
fanning community, water interests, and other interested parties. The five-member
steering committee was made up of representatives of Maricopa County, the City of El
Mirage (the site of the existing landfill), and the Arizona State Department of Health
Services. Public involvement also included an extensive series of public meetings.
Key participants supported the concept of public involvement as a constructive process.
A consultant added "siting a landfill is not simply a technical study, but a social process."
The County Supervisor said that the goal was "to arrive at a consensus about a landfill
site that is not only environmentally sound, but one that is socially acceptable."
The Deputy County Engineer noted that although some members of the advisory
committee learned about landfills, others learned about the preferences and concerns of
the residents near the potential sites. The residents' biggest issue was the potential impact
on water supplies drawn through local wells. The County, on the other hand, was
particularly concerned that the landfill not interfere with future land uses.
Site selection consisted of a regional analysis of suitable sites using site selection criteria
identified by professional staff and the advisory committee. These criteria included the
potential for impacts on water quality, existing and future land uses, traffic congestion, air
quality, noise levels, and user costs. A criteria-weighting process assigned relative
importance to the various criteria.
The initial 24 sites were eventually reduced to 7, which underwent more intense site
precharacterization. The final site was selected roughly ten miles from the edge of the
northwestern metropolitan area. When public hearings were held to obtain public
comments on the final site, the feedback was strongly supportive.
' (continued)
-------
BUILDING A SITING STRATEGY 19
Northwest Regional Landfill (continued)
During project design, the steering committee addressed concerns about hazards to water
supplies by banning bulk liquid waste from the site and designing a leachate collection
system to redirect polluted rainwater. Public involvement continued throughout project
design as consultants worked with area residents to minimize visual and traffic impacts
on the community.
The County is now working with the City of Phoenix on another siting effort in the
southwestern part of the county. Several public officials noted that the Northwest project
was rescued from failure, but the Southwest project has incorporated a broad public
involvement program from the start. 4
Case 2: Hempstead Resource Recovery Facility
Hempstead, New York
In 1984, public officials in Hempstead began the redevelopment of a refuse-derived fuel
incinerator that had been closed by the EPA several years earlier. Hempstead's
population of 750,000 generated over 2,000 tons of solid waste per day. Hempstead
shipped some of its solid waste to Pennsylvania for disposal at a cost of $ 110 per ton,
with the rest going nearby to the Oceanside landfill, which was to close in June 1989.
In Hempstead, land disposal was becoming a less viable option. Under the 1983 Long
Island Landfill Act, residues from incineration, resource recovery, or composting could
be buried in a landfill after December 1990 only if the landfill were outside the primary
recharge area for an aquifer and if the landfill contained a double liner. Existing landfills
could obtain variances from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) after
1990 only if the landfills were located outside the primary recharge area.
Hempstead had formed a Solid Waste Advisory Committee in the early 1980's in
response to problems from the previous incinerator. The committee made
recommendations to the Town Board, which retained the final power of approval.
Animosity existed between members of the committee and members of the Town Board
because of the struggle over management of the old incinerator. As chair of the advisory
committee and a public official, the Public Works Commissioner acted as a mediator to
reduce tensions. In addition, the advisory committee was reorganized to deal with the
new site, adding homeowner representatives from Oceanside who demanded that the
landfill there be closed immediately.
The site selection process in Hempstead was simplified by several factors. Political
expediency dictated that the old site was the only potential site within the town's limits.
The town already owned the land and only had to negotiate the purchase of the closed
facility. Adjacent property included a harness track, a shopping center, a six-lane
highway and a one thousand-acre park. The nearest residential neighbors were
approximately one-quarter mile away. Last, community leaders accepted the site
designation and concentrated their energies on safety design issues.
(continued)
-------
20 SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Hempstead Resource Recovery Facility (continued)
The advisory committee met monthly to discuss issues and to resolve disputes. Invited
speakers regularly explained technologies, risks, and options. In addition, the forum
allowed residents from near the landfill and the incinerator to express a broad range of
related community concerns. Committee members, therefore, felt as if they gained
significant expertise and were better equipped to make the necessary decisions. They
were assisted by the pro bono work of an expert from Stonybrook University. The former
Public Works Commissioner noted that the atmosphere was open and effective and that
the members gained confidence and trust in the process.
The advisory committee played an integral part in the review and design of the
redeveloped facility. They were able to negotiate successfully for a preferred stack
height, scrubbers, and a baghouse to control air emissions. They also negotiated a
recycling program and open access to monitoring data. The advisory committee finally
recommended that the community accept the negotiated agreement. Throughout the
process, the nearby residents were informed through a quarterly newsletter and updates at
meetings of civic associations.
Hempstead constructed a new mass-burn incinerator that became fully operational by
October 1989. The facility processes 2,250 tons per day of solid waste from the city and
produces 700 tons per day of ash residue that is shipped to a landfill in upstate New York.
Management of the facility is overseen by the Hempstead Department of Public Works,
and operation is contracted to a private waste management company.
The advisory committee still meets on a monthly basis and hears reports from the Public
Works Commissioner, the plant operations manager, the plant ecologist, and the town's
recycling coordinator. According to one advisory committee member, the ongoing
interaction of the community with the plant operator provides the community with the
security that "the practices of the company are consistent with commitments made during
the permitting process." +
Lessons from Successful Sitings
Most experts agree that no perfect siting model exists. Even so, lessons from
successful sitings offer more insight into which strategies should be pursued
and how public officials can resolve particularly difficult issues. The
following lessons have been drawn from information from actual sitings.
Successful siting efforts require both political and technical expertise by
public officials and citizens. Public involvement allows waste management
professionals and citizens to come together in a structured forum to learn and
exchange views. In 1982, the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority
initiated a new siting process and a public involvement plan that included
monthly meetings with a permanent citizen advisory group and a series of
-------
BUILDING A SITING STRATEGY
public meetings. The County broke ground for construction in 1987 in an
exclusive neighborhood in West Palm Beach with a great deal of public
support from community groups, municipal leaders, and the press. The
project's success is attributed by some to the early and continuous flow of
information exchanged between the citizen advisory group and the Solid
Waste Authority.
Chapter 4 discusses the various segments of the public likely to emerge in the
siting process and what motivates their participation. Chapter 5 provides a
guide for thinking strategically about how, when, and to what extent to
involve the public.
The various segments of the public should be consulted at every stage of the
decision-making process. Planning for public involvement at the beginning
of the siting process avoids costly delays, misunderstandings, and animosity.
Public officials in Maricopa County, Arizona, did not engage the public until
the site selection stage, after many important decisions had already been made.
Public opposition to the process forced them to backtrack to the beginning.
Chapter 6 provides an overview of the various techniques for involving the
public, using examples from previous sitings.
Successful sitings require an informed opposition, and a good risk
communication program establishes an exchange of information among the
various participants. Constructive public involvement can be improved through
a complementary risk communication project. Risk communication programs
focus on improving the content of risk messages to the public and improving the
delivery of information through various communication channels.
Chapter 7 explains how to communicate risks more effectively and provides a
media strategy for public officials.
Credible technical information is crucial to resolving conflicts in the siting
process. A successful risk communication program must consist of credible
technical information. Also, open access to information is essential to gaining
the public's trust. One innovative program in Wisconsin allows waste
managers to provide grants to community representatives to hire their own
technical consultants. These consultants work on behalf of the citizens to
oversee technical studies and communicate risk assessment results.
Chapter 8 discusses how technical information can become a major
battleground and suggests ways to strengthen its credibility.
-------
22
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
The siting process must be flexible; all characteristics are negotiable. The
waste manager's job is to design a facility that manages the community's solid
waste while reducing potential risks and public anxiety. A landfill in Fulton
County, New York, included monitoring wells even though the
hydrogeological study said there was no risk of ground-water contamination.
In a regional landfill in Northhampton, Massachusetts, neighbors negotiated a
restriction limiting the disposal trips for non-local haulers from neighboring
communities to one per week.
All the cases studied for the guidebook show that successful sitings require a
flexible siting process. Chapter 9 discusses how proposed actions to mitigate
the negative impacts of a solid waste facility can reduce opposition and how to
identify and address key mitigation issues.
Careful planning and effective management are essential to a successful
siting effort. Public officials should make a special effort to evaluate
implementation of major siting activities. Chapter 10 discusses ways to use
evaluation tools to provide cost-effective, timely information to project
managers.
The state plays an important role in supporting an effective siting process.
In some cases, the state has helped the public gain local control over land-use
decisions. As noted earlier, the state can provide support for a project through
outright grants and loans, or it can provide a legislative and regulatory
environment that favors sound waste management. The guidebook does not
discuss this issue in detail.
-------
WHO IS THE PUBLIC? 23
CHAPTER 4
WHO IS THE PUBLIC?
Highlights:
• The "public" is not a single entity—many interests and groups make up the various
segments of the public.
• People participate only when they see themselves as affected, and the size and
composition of the public will differ for each siting process.
• Public officials need to offer different kinds of involvement to permit people to
participate at their level of interest and expertise.
• Public involvement programs usually include only a limited segment of the public, but
officials also have several obligations to the general public.
Thinking About the Public
The first step in designing a public involvement program is to stop and think:
Who is the public? Different segments of the public will participate on
different issues. For example, the public for siting a transmission line would
be the residents a few hundred yards on each side of the proposed line.
Members of the public who participate in education issues are not defined by
geography, but by having school-age children.
"The public" is not a single entity—many interests and groups make up the
various segments of the public. Every time people identify themselves as .
something—an accountant, Rotarian, Democrat, Methodist, woman,
government employee, and so forth—they are defining another "public" that
determines part of their identity. Some of these interests or groups are well
organized, such as professional associations, political parties, churches, and
-------
24 SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
some social groups. They are formed because their members have a common,
continuing interest. Others exist in potential only. For example, many
neighborhoods have litde organization for political action, but the residents
can be effectively organized if they perceive a threat to that neighborhood.
People participate in issues in response to some perceived interest and stay
organized as long as that interest continues to be affected. If a neighborhood
feels threatened because a potential site for a solid waste facility is in that
neighborhood, neighbors will stay organized as long as that site is under
consideration (or until the sense of threat is removed in some other way).
Once formed, however, some groups continue to stay organized and exert
influence on other issues.
.Who Is The Public for the Siting of a Solid Waste Facility?
Because people participate only when they see themselves as affected, the size
and composition of the public will differ for each siting process. As a result,
no one single public involvement process that fits all situations. Rather,
programs need to be tailored to the public for a particular issue.
Community members might take part in a public involvement program for
siting a solid waste facility for any of the following six reasons:
Proximity
People who live in the immediate vicinity of an existing facility or near any of
the alternative sites being considered will probably become involved because
of a. perceived threat to the neighborhood. They may be concerned about
property values, noise, odor, air pollution, or ground-water contamination.
,In contrast, occasionally someone living next to a site remains unconcerned,
although someone living several blocks away may feel directly affected. If
traffic is an important issue, for example, people living a number of blocks
away but along potential feeder streets may perceive a threat to their
neighborhood.
Economic Impact
Public officials realize that an unsolved solid waste problem can place a
considerable financial strain on municipal services and on economic
development. Local developers are also concerned about land uses and
development. Manufacturers who use local solid waste facilities may worry
-------
WHO IS THE PUBLIC?
25
about long-term plans to dispose of waste products. And the general public
may express interest in the cost of solid waste disposal, but usually after a
significant increase threatens their economic security.
Users
Direct users of a solid waste facility may get involved if that use is threatened.
For example, some forms of disposal may no longer be permitted because of
inadequate, existing facilities. Also, current users of a proposed site—such as
hikers or joggers—may participate to protect their use.
Social/Environmental Issues
Facility sitings often get embroiled in larger social and political issues in the
community. Since siting a solid waste facility may lead to additional
development, facility proponents sometimes are drawn into debates about how
much development the community should permit. Environmental groups may
be interested in a solid waste facility primarily because of its impact on air or
water resources, but they may also oppose a facility as a way of forcing local
governmental agencies to engage in waste-reduction or recycling programs.
Values
Fortunately, solid waste does not normally involve significant moral dilemmas
that mobilize citizens concerned primarily with moral or value issues. When
questions of health or safety reach a high level of polarization, however,
opponents to a facility begin to discuss the issue primarily in terms of ethics
("threatening the lives of our children so that developers can earn more
profits"). Or, issues may be described in terms of fairness when the
government is seen as "confiscating" the property of "the little person." Such
arguments may be effective in attracting new participants by appealing to their
sense of moral outrage.
Providing effective
ways for governmental
agencies to participate
is as crucial as
creating ways for the
average citizen to
participate.
Legal Mandates
Governmental agencies at a local, state, or federal level often play significant
roles in facility sitings. In planning a public involvement program, all
agencies except the proponent should be treated as a part of the public that is
to be consulted. Providing effective ways for governmental agencies to
participate is as crucial as creating ways for the average citizen to participate.
Governmental agencies often have a very limited legal mandate. One agency
-------
26
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
may be concerned about air quality, another about wildlife resources, or
another about traffic. In fulfilling their mandates to protect particular
resources, these different agencies can block the siting of a project.
Different Levels of Involvement
The various segments of the public will have different levels of involvement
based on differences in roles, technical expertise, and willingness to commit
time and energy. Different types of public involvement may be necessary to
reach different groups.
One way to picture these levels of involvement is to visualize several "orbits"
of activity revolving around the decision makers (see Figure 4-1). The actual
decision makers form the nucleus and are usually elected officials, members
of regulatory commissions, or the heads of permitting agencies. At the next
level of influence are the staff and technical consultants of all these agencies.
The next further rung out are the leaders of organized groups or interests, who
often possess considerable technical expertise, may have their own staff or
technical consultants, and are'willing to spend the time and energy to attempt
to influence the'decision.
Levels of Involvement by Various Segments of the Public
General Public
Active Citizens
Organized Groups
Technical Interest Groups
Staff and Consultants
Decision Makers
Figure 4-1
-------
WHO IS THE PUBLIC?
You may need-to offer
different kinds of
involvement to permit
people to participate at
their varying levels of
Interest and expertise.
At the next orbit are members of the organized groups or interests, who might
not choose to participate unless their leaders mobilize them to influence the
decision. Still further out are active, concerned citizens who do not start out
identified with any organized group but choose to participate after becoming
concerned about a particular issue or an immediate impact on their
neighborhood. These individuals may coalesce into a group, or join existing
groups, before the siting decision to site is finally made. But they start by
getting interested strictly on an individual basis. Last is the general public,
which either watches with interest but chooses not to get involved or remains
totally apathetic about the decision.
The closer the group is to the decision-making center, the greater its
opportunity for influencing the decision. But moving successively to each
closer orbit requires an increasingly greater commitment of expertise, time, and
energy by the individual. Conversely, extending opportunities for participation
requires increased energy for each additional orbit you try to include.
Different kinds of public involvement may be required for different orbits. In
the Maricopa County case in Chapter 3, for example, each local government
entity was represented on a steering committee, which was in charge of the
entire process. The agency staff and technical consultants were members of a
Technical Advisory Committee, which helped scope the studies to be
conducted, ranked the consulting firms that proposed to conduct the studies,
reviewed the technical adequacy of the studiess and reviewed the rankings of
the sites. Leaders of organized groups were included in a Public Advisory
Committee. They participated in setting the criteria for site evaluation and
weighing the importance of the various evaluation factors. In addition,
interested individuals could attend public meetings to comment on the process
and its results.
This particular mix of techniques may not be appropriate in every situation,
but the principle remains valid: Each segment of the public will be willing to
commit a certain amount of time and energy to influence the decision, so you
may need to offer different kinds of involvement to permit people to
participate at their varying levels of interest and expertise.
How the Public Changes Throughout the Siting Process
Not only are there many different segments of the public, but the size and
composition of the public changes over time, as discussed below.
-------
28
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Different groups and interests mil be involved at different stages of the
siting process. Groups become active for very different reasons, and they, will
choose to be involved at different stages of the siting process. For example,
people in the community who are aware of the need for a solid waste facility
are likely to be involved in the early stages of the siting process.
Neighborhood opposition groups are likely to be involved only after potential
sites have been identified. They may be very active as long as a site in that
neighborhood is under consideration and may stop participating when that site
is dropped from consideration.
Groups that raise concerns about health risks and other issues may be
primarily concerned with preventing a facility from being located in their
neighborhood. They sometimes, but not always, raise an issue in an effort to
get more political support. But by raising the health issue, they attract people
who are genuinely concerned about health risks.
The size of the public for a particular issue increases with controversy. This
statement should be obvious—people tend to be more active as the perceived
threat grows. The public for a particular issue may be a relatively small
percentage of the population, but that percentage increases as controversy
grows.
People will participate more in some stages of the siting process than in
others, depending on their relative ability to contribute. Some steps are
relatively technical in nature, involving technical studies. Typically only the
well-organized groups with technical expertise will provide significant
influence during these stages. However, these stages are usually followed by
stages in which big social choices must be made and in which a broader public
can and will participate. This expansion and contraction may take place
several times during the course of the siting process.
Public involvement will increase as the siting process progresses. Although
"the public" may expand and contract several times during the course of the
siting process, a general trend still prevails: As a decision comes closer and
closer, more people will choose to participate; as a final decision comes
nearer, the potential benefits and costs are more visible.
One significant problem in designing public involvement programs is that
many-people assume that the program started the day they began participating.
These new arrivals want to reexamine all the assumptions, alternatives, and
-------
WHO IS THE PUBLIC?
29
Each stage in the
siting process has an
appropriate level of
participation.
decisions that have been made over the months. As a result, it is very
important to document all stages of public involvement and show how public
comment influenced previous decisions.
One conclusion to be drawn from the increasing level of participation is that
each stage in the siting process has an appropriate level of participation. It is
possible, for example, to attempt too much public involvement at a particular
step in the siting process, just as it is possible to provide too little. Too much
early enthusiasm, for example, can be dampened when the siting process
extends for several years. Public involvement programs need to balance early
involvement of those people who have a continuing interest in a problem,
coupled with opportunities for involvement of a broader public at points where
their participation will be most effective.
Obligations to the General Public
Democracy embodies two important concepts of representation. One concept
is "one person, one vote," in which, theoretically, everyone participates
equally. But the reality is often different. Those people who donate to a
candidate or issue, stuff envelopes, campaign door-to-door, or drive people to
the polls have more impact than people who just show up and vote.
The second concept of representation is that "those people most affected by a
decision should have the greatest voice in making the decision." The person
whose property may be condemned for a new solid waste facility or who may
be affected negatively by noise, dust, or odor, believes that he or she should
have a stronger voice in the decision than someone who experiences a two
dollar increase in the monthly trash collection bill.
Because people see themselves affected for different reasons, comparing
apples and oranges is inevitable. How do you relate the relative importance of
a noise impact on some people, versus keeping industry in the community by
providing solid waste disposal, versus protecting the quality of life in the
community, versus a perceived health risk? The answer will clearly not be
resolved by an engineer or technician. It is inevitably political, and will be
resolved through political channels. The reality of political life is that those
who choose to participate will have more influence than those who do not.
-------
30
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Although public involvement programs usually involve only a limited segment
of the public, public officials nonetheless have several obligations to the
general public:
• Inform the general public of the consequences of a proposed action, so that
people can choose whether to participate;
• Inform the general public of the consequences of not taking a proposed
action;
• Show people how to participate so that interested people can participate;
• Provide all segments of the public equal access to information and to
decision makers, provide information to both supporters and opponents of
the project, and make sure that decision makers are available to both
groups; and
• Seek the full spectrum of opinion within the community, not only from the
business community, agencies, or other probable supporters, but also from
neighborhood groups, environmental groups, and interests with different
points of view.
These obligations fulfill the public official's ethical responsibility to the
general public, but they also have a practical value in building the foundation
necessary for successful communication.
-------
INCLUDING THE PUBLIC IN THE PROCESS 31
CHAPTER 5
INCLUDING THE PUBLIC IN THE PROCESS
Highlights:
• A public involvement plan integrates the public in every stage of the process. Token
participation will not buy credibility.
• A public involvement plan describes in detail the activities that will be conducted, their
sequence and timing, and responsibility for carrying out the plan.
• The Appendix contains a sample public involvement plan to use as a guide for
developing your own.
• A systematic analysis of your particular circumstances and the appropriate public
involvement techniques is essential to developing an effective plan.
Developing a Public Involvement Plan
Experience from successful sitings shows that consulting with the public is as
important to success as performing good technical studies. Involving the
public is not just window dressing. Instead, effective public involvement
requires integrating public concerns and values at every stage of the siting
process. Token participation will not buy credibility and may even offend the
public more than if there had been no consultation at all.
Most experienced practitioners prepare a formal public involvement plan at
the beginning of any decision-making process. This plan describes in detail
the activities that will be conducted, their sequence and timing, and
responsibility for carrying out the plan. See the Appendix for an example of a
public involvement plan.
-------
32
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Even If you Interview
only a few people,
talking to people
representing a cross
section of viewpoints,
not Just supporters or
opponents, Is
Important
There are three major reasons for developing a public involvement plan:
1. Preparing a public involvement plan forces careful analysis of how
public involvement fits in the siting process.
2. Preparing a public involvement plan provides a mechanism for
consultation among all the various agencies and entities that have a
stake in how the program is conducted. Even within a single agency
one department can be responsible for public information, another for
governmental affairs, another for environmental or permitting activities,
and so on. Because each of these entities may need to implement a
portion of the program, they need to understand how their contribution
fits in the total scheme.
3. A public involvement plan communicates to the public what to expect,
providing a kind of "contract" with the public that helps establish the
credibility of the sponsoring agencies.
When developing the public involvement plan, use your judgment to identify
the leaders of a few organized groups in advance, to assess the likely level of
interest in the siting issue and to get advice on which other groups are likely to
be concerned by the issue. Even if you interview only a few people, talking to
people representing a cross-section of viewpoints, not just supporters or
opponents, is important.
It is often wise to develop the public involvement plan as a group activity,
involving various departments or agencies outside of the DPW's solid waste
division. In some agencies it is very hard for one department to take direction
from another coequal department without getting into turf battles. When one
department or agency develops the plan individually, expecting others to
automatically and effectively implement the plan is naive. So, when
developing the plan, it is best to include all the key actors and get their input
and approval.
One way to coordinate activities is for one member to lead a working group
(composed of representatives from the various entities) through the thought
process described below. By the time you get to participation techniques, most
people have endorsed the process and are committed to implementing their
portion of the actual plan. Often the product at the end of such a work session is
a stack of flipchart sheets from which a single person or group will develop a
written plan for the group's final approval. But this plan should be used as a
summary of the group's thinking, rather than as a plan imposed on the group.
-------
INCLUDING THE PUBLIC IN THE PROCESS 33
Be sure that the plan considers the interaction between activities. For
example, local elected officials should receive some briefing about potentially
controversial actions before they read about them in the paper or hear about
them from a constituent. Carefully coordinate the timing of activities so that
nobody is taken by surprise and no information is released out of sequence
with other activities.
In the end, the plan should include information to help the management of an
agency or a policy board (such as a city council) understand the rationale
behind the plan (see Figure 5-1).
The Elements of a Public Involvement Plan
Describe any early consultation (e.g., interviews with interest group leaders)
that led to the development of the plan.
Describe the major issues likely to emerge in the course of the siting process.
Estimate the level of public interest likely to be generated by the decision under
consideration.
List the agencies, groups, and key individuals most likely to be interested in the
siting process. :
List the major stages in the siting process.
Outline a sequential plan of public involvement activities for each stage in the
siting process.
List key points when the public involvement plan will be reviewed and, if
necessary, revised.
Provide, for internal use only, a staff and budget estimate and an analysis of
the support services required to implement the plan.
Figure 5-1
A public involvement plan can vary in length from a few to many pages,
depending on the complexity of the issue. The plan is a flexible document that
will provide a structure for analyzing the requirements of the situation (see
Figure 5-2). It is not just a paper exercise. The objectives of the plan can be
used to measure the adequacy of preliminary drafts.
-------
34 SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
The Objectives of a Public Involvement Plan
Include enough detail so that everyone involved in implementing the plan knows
what he or she is expected to do, and when.
Include enough detail to permit development of budget, staff, and schedule
estimates.
Allow agency management or policy boards to assess the adequacy of the
activities planned in relationship to the anticipated public interest.
Clearly communicate to the public how and when they will have opportunities to
participate.
Figure 5-2
You may want to give agencies that are likely to be actively interested in the
siting process the opportunity to review the public involvement plan (although
usually not the budget and staffing estimates). Even when this review does
not take place, the public involvement plan should be written so that it could
be shown to members of the public at any time.
The Public Involvement Thought Process
This part of the chapter will be most useful for professional staff members
who are responsible for developing the public involvement plan. Now that
you know what a public involvement plan should look like, the following
pages describe a systematic way of thinking about exactly what is to be
accomplished, with whom, when, and only then, how. This thought process
can be the basis for a planning meeting among all the key agencies or
departments to get agreement on the public involvement plan.
Without a systematic analysis of your particular circumstances and which
public involvement techniques are most appropriate in those circumstances,
developing a public involvement plan simply degenerates into arguments
about techniques. Thus, the chosen techniques might not be appropriate for
the circumstances, and might be viewed by the public as merely "tacked on"
the main decision-making process rather than being an integral part of it.
-------
INCLUDING THE PUBLIC IN THE PROCESS
35
Step 1: Outline the Steps in the Siting Process
As discussed in Chapter 4, different groups and interests will participate at
different stages in the siting process, with different levels of interest and
intensity of involvement. Before assessing what kind of participation is
appropriate at each stage of the process, first agree oil the steps to go through
in the siting process. These steps may vary significantly depending on the
situation. If, for example, there is broad general agreement that a new landfill
is needed, you may need fewer steps than if there is" a major debate about
whether there must be a source reduction program and/or recycling program in
place before siting a landfill. "If there are only two to three possible sites
within the community you may not need as extended a process as you would if
you needed first to identify candidate sites in an entire region.
Using the three-phase siting framework—planning, site selection and facility
design, and implementation—a number of questions should be answered
before designing a public involvement plan (see Figure 5-3). These questions
are just examples. They do not have to be answered before you outline the
steps in the siting process. The key is to agree on a well-defined process,
suited to your specific needs, before beginning to talk about public
involvement.
Step 2? Identify the Public Involvement Objectives for Each Step in the
Siting Process
"What are we trying to accomplish with the public during this step in the *'
siting process?" This question can be expressed in the form of public
involvement objectives (see Figure 5-4). Remember, each step in the siting
process will have one or more public involvement objectives.
Step 3: Determine the Information Exchange Needed to Complete Each
Step in the Siting Process.
Effective public involvement programs include a public information
component. The public will not be able to participate effectively unless they
have adequate information. But the difference between public information
and public involvement lies in providing forums for the public to comment on
and influence decision making. "Information exchange" means thinking about
what information the public needs to participate and what you need to ask the
public. The two questions are intertwined.
-------
36
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Preliminary Needs Assessment for Public Involvement Plan
Phase lY-Planning *",
What is the appropriate mix of source reduction, recycling, incineration, and
landfill programs?
What is the required landfill capacity?
What are the site feasibility criteria (e.g., existing land uses, hydrogeological
conditions, transportation)?
What is the study area within which sites will be considered?
Pftase Us ..Site Selection and Facility Design
What is the time frame for site selection?
What steps will reduce the number of sites?
How many sites will undergo extensive precharacterization?
How will a volunteer community be sought?
What safety features should be included in the facility design?
What mitigation features should be included in the facility design?
asejlfio Implementation s "'"
sV j1* .,•»,," :;''•• "" ' '" , ,,m
How will incoming wastes be monitored on site?
How will air or groundwater monitoring be administered?
What operating procedures will be used by the operator?
Who will have management oversight?
Will local representatives have open access to all monitoring data?
Figure 5-3
-------
INCLUDING THE PUBLIC IN THE PROCESS 37
Examples of Public Involvement Objectives
Assess the level of interest of various segments bf the public in the siting
process.
Evaluate key groups' understanding of solid waste problems in the community
and the options for addressing these problems.
Review the list of alternative sites to see whether it is complete (or appropriate).
Assess site evaluation criteria.
Identify public concerns associated with each site.
Assess the acceptability of the preferred site.
Identify the mitigation measures to ensure site acceptability.
Figure 5-4
The nature of the information to be exchanged depends on your public involve-
ment objectives—what you are trying to accomplish with the public at each
stage in the siting process. For example, if your goal is to gain endorsement for
the list of alternative sites, then you need to tell the public the following:
• The process by which the list was developed;
• The criteria used in identifying these sites;
• What other sites were considered, and why they were dropped from the list; and
• How the public participated in developing the list.
The information you might want back from the public would be the following:
• The acceptability of the process used to screen sites;
• Whether any of the sites that were dropped from the list should be retained; and
• Whether the list of alternatives is complete.
Remember, go through this procedure for each public involvement objective.
Step 4: Identify the Interest Groups and Organizations with Whom
Information Must Be Exchanged
To be sure that you choose the most appropriate public involvement
techniques, you must define the interest groups and organizations for each
stage in the siting process. You can tell who has to be involved at each step
by looking at the kind of information you need from the public. For example,
during a stage when highly technical studies are being conducted, it is likely
that only well-organized groups or agencies will have the technical expertise
-------
38
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
to participate in such questions as whether the scope of study is adequate or
the methodologies are appropriate. If you are at a step in the siting process
when you need information about local land uses, geology, or environmental
factors, you need to involve local agency personnel, leaders of organized
groups, and possibly landowners or developers. If you are at a stage when you
need information from the public about the acceptability of the alternative
plans, then you need to reach as broad a public as possible.
Knowing which segments of the.public you need to reach tells you a lot about
what public involvement techniques to use. If you need information on local
land uses you may want to conduct a series of interviews with key people.
But if you need to reach a broad general public, consider using the media,
coupled with techniques like workshops to get comment from the general
public. Be aware that even at steps in the process when you are seeking
information primarily from a limited segment of the public, you may need to
continue to provide information to a broader audience.
The reason for identifying target groups and interests is to help in selecting
techniques, not to exclude any interests. Even if the chosen techniques are
aimed at limited numbers of people, you should provide avenues for self-
identified groups to participate if they wish.
Step 5: Describe Any Special Circumstances that Could Affect
Selection of Public Involvement Techniques
Occasionally special circumstances could dictate your choice of public
involvement techniques. A few illustrations follow.
Characteristics of the Public—A community may be very unified or strongly
divided. For unified communities you may be able to rely on local elected
officials to express the feelings of the community. In divided communities,
however, you may need to ensure that all segments of the community are
heard, because the elected officials may not represent the entire community on
a particular issue. If a community is accustomed to one forum of
participation, such as the New England town meeting, and no other technique
will have the same legitimacy, you may need to use the locally accepted
techniques. Other characteristics of the public that might affect your selection
of techniques include whether the public is already well-informed about the
issue or is starting from scratch, and whether the public is already hostile or is
apathetic about the issues.
-------
INCLUDING THE PUBLIC IN THE PROCESS
Periodically review
your public
involvement strategy
to adapt to changing
circumstances.
Characteristics of the Issue-^-If the issue attracts national attention, you may
need to use techniques that reach national interest groups. If the issue is
exceptionally technical, you may need to spend more time and effort with
public information. When the level of interest in the issue is very high, with
thousands of people potentially interested, use different techniques from those
issues with a few interested parties. The techniques may be dictated by the
importance of the issue for the various interests. If an issue is "do or die" for
any of the interest groups, the group will unquestionably demand a higher
level of participation than on issues in which their key interests are not at
stake. If the siting process will last several years, not just a few months, use
techniques that sustain interest and visibility over an extended period
Be aware that these special circumstances may change during the course of the
study. A local issue may begin to attract national interest. A local election
may radically change the political complexion of a community. As more
studies are done, groups' perceptions of the importance of an issue may
change. Periodically review your public involvement strategy and adapt it to
changing circumstances.
Step 6: Identify the Appropriate Techniques—and Their Sequence—to
Accomplish the Information Exchange
All the preceding steps have been designed to give you the information to
complete this step. You now know the decision-making process, what you
want to accomplish with the public (public involvement objectives), and the
information exchange that must take place, and with whom. You also have
identified any special circumstances that could influence your choice of public
involvement techniques. Now you need to select specific techniques and
determine when you will use each technique, the subject of Chapter 6.
-------
-------
TECHNIQUES FOR INVOLVING THE PUBLIC 41
CHAPTER 6
TECHNIQUES FOR INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
Highlights:
• Techniques for involving the public can be divided into two categories: Information
Techniques (getting information to the public) and Participation Techniques (getting
information/r0?n the public).
• Information techniques include briefings for public officials and agencies, feature
stories, mailing out key technical reports, news conferences, newsletters, newspaper
inserts, new releases, paid advertisements, presentations to civic and technical groups,
press kits, and public service announcements.
• Participation techniques include advisory groups/task forces; focus groups; public
information phone line; interviews; hearings, meetings, and workshops; participatory
television/cable television; plebiscites; and polls.
• The effectiveness of public involvement does not result from using a single public
involvement technique, but from combining involvement and participation techniques
into a total program.
Thinking About Techniques
Public involvement is a dialogue, a two-way communication that involves
both getting information out to the public and getting back from the public
ideas, issues and concerns. Although they ultimately must fit together, for
convenience it is easier to divide the techniques into two categories:
information techniques (getting information to the public) and participation
techniques (getting information from the public). The next two sections
provide "shopping lists" of information techniques and participation
techniques, listed alphabetically. Each technique on these lists has been used
in some community public involvement program. A discussion follows about
which techniques are most helpful, and under which circumstances.
-------
42
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Information Techniques
The public needs to
know the facts about a
proposed decision to
decide whether they
can support It.
Every good public involvement program includes a good public information
program. In particular, the public needs to know why a solid waste facility is
needed and what the consequences will be if no facility is sited. People need
information about the alternatives to choose between them, and they need to
know the facts about a proposed decision to decide whether they support it.
Some of the major techniques for communicating to the public are discussed
below (see Table 6-1).
Briefings
Briefings keep key elected officials or agencies informed of your progress.
Briefings simply consist of a personal visit or even a phone call to inform
people before an action is taken. Briefings often lead to two-way
communication, because you may receive valuable information in response to
your announcement. Briefing elected officials or agencies is particularly
important if your actions might result in political controversy that may affect
them.
A basic law of governmental affairs is never to let an elected official (or an
agency head) be taken by surprise. If you are taking an action that might
affect an elected official—for example, if you are going to announce that one
site under consideration is in a Council person's electoral district—never let
that official find out about it by reading the paper, or worse yet, by having a
constituent phone and ask what he or she is going, to do about it. As much as
possible, provide the information first, even if people do not like what you are
telling them, to prevent resentment and surprise and embarrassment in front of
constituents.
Feature Stories
A feature story is a full-blown news story, written by a reporter, not just an
announcement based on a news release. Sending a news release to a
newspaper or station is one way to get the media interested in your story. But
often you are more likely to get someone interested if you make a personal
contact with an editor or reporter who has an interest in the issue. Of course,
if your project becomes controversial, the problem is not getting the news
media interested, but being sure that you provide the all-too-interested media
with timely, factual, and objective information.
-------
TABLE 6-1. PUBLIC INFORMATION TECHNIQUES
Technique
Features
Advantages
Disadvantages
Briefings
Personal visit or phone call to key
officials or group leaders to
announce a decision, provide
background information, or answer
questions.
Provide background information.
Determine reactions before an issue
"goes public." Alert key people to
issues that may affect them.
Requires time.
Feature stories
In-depth story about the siting
study in newspapers or on radio
and television.
Provide detailed information to
stimulate interest in the siting
study, particularly at key junctures
such as evaluating alternative sites
or selecting a preferred site. Often
used prior to public meetings to
stimulate interest.
Newspaper will present the story as
editor sees fit—project proponent
has no control over how the story is
presented, except to provide full
information.
Mailing out key
technical reports
or environmental
documents
Mailing technical studies or
environmental reports to other
agencies and leaders of organized
groups or interests.
Provides full and detailed
information to people who are most
interested. Often increases
credibility of studies because they
are fully visible.
Costs money to print and mail.
Some people may not even read the
reports.
News
conferences
Brief presentation to reporters,
followed by question-and-answer
period, often accompanied by
handouts of presenter's comments.
Stimulate media interest in a story.
Direct quotes often appear in
television/radio. Might draw
attention to an announcement or
generate interest in public
meetings.
Reporters will only come if the
announcement/presentation is
newsworthy. Cannot control how
the story is presented, although
some direct quotes are likely.
Newsletters
Brief description of what is going
on in the siting study, usually
issued at key intervals for all .
people who have shown an interest
in the study.
Provide more information than can
be presented through the media to
those people who are most
interested. Often used to provide
information prior to public
meetings or key decision points.
Also maintain visibility during
extended technical studies.
Require staff time and cost money
to prepare, print, and mail. Stories
must be objective and credible or
people will react to newsletters as if
they were propaganda.
CONTINUED
-------
TABLE 6-1. PUBLIC INFORMATION TECHNIQUES (continued)
Technique
Features
Advantages
Disadvantages
Newspaper
inserts
Much like a newsletter, but
distributed as an insert in a
newspaper.
Reach the entire community with
important information such as
project need and alternative sites
being considered. Is one of the few
mechanisms for reaching everyone
in the community through which
you can tell the story your way.
Requires staff time to prepare
insert, and distribution costs
money. Must be prepared to
newspaper's layout specifications.
Potential negative reaction to use of
public funds for this purpose exists.
News releases
A short announcement or news
story issued to the media to get
interest in media coverage of the
story.
May stimulate interest from the
media. Useful for announcing
meetings or major decisions or as
background material for future
media stories.
May be ignored or not read.
Cannot control how the information
is used.
Paid
advertisements
Advertising space purchased in
newspapers or on radio or
television.
Effective for announcing meetings
or key decisions. Story presented
the way you want.
Advertising space can be costly.
Radio and television may entail
expensive production costs to
prepare the ad. Potential negative
reaction to use of public funds for
this purpose exists.
Presentations to
civic and
technical groups
Deliver presentations, enhanced
with slides or viewgraphs, to key
community groups
Stimulates communication with
community groups. Can also
provide in-depth feedback.
key) Few disadvantages except some
groups may be hostile.
Press kits
A packet of information distributed
to reporters.
Stimulates media interest in the
story. Provides background
information which reporters use for
future stories.
Has few disadvantages, except may
be ignored. Cannot control how the
information is used.
Public service
announcements
Short announcement provided free
of charge by radio and television
stations as part of their public
service obligations.
Useful for making announcements
such as for public meetings.
Many organizations compete for
the same space. Story may not be
aired or may be aired at hours when
there are few listeners.
-------
TECHNIQUES FOR INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
45
Mail key documents
directly to leaders of
organized groups and
Interests.
Mailing Out Key Technical Reports or Environmental Documents
Simply making technical reports or environmental documents available at
libraries or other repositories has not proven effective at getting the level of
knowledge about these documents that you need for credibility. Instead, mail
key documents directly to leaders .of the organized groups and interests,
including business, environmental, or neighborhood organizations. When
constructing your mailing list, code the names of people so that you can create
a smaller list to whom you will send copies of key reports. You might want to
send a two- to three-page summary of the reports to your larger mailing list,
advising that you will supply full copies on request.
If you are sending out a regular newsletter, as an alternative to sending out a
separate summary you could describe the study results in your newsletter,
providing a clip-out request form for people wanting copies of the study
report. Obviously costs are involved in sending out copies of full reports, but
these costs ^are a lot less than having to redo studies because people did not
trust the credibility of the studies. ,
News Conferences
A news conference is another way to stimulate the interest of the media in
developing news stories. The particular value of a news conference is that
your spokesperson will be speaking directly to the public, particularly on radio
or television, either of which may carry short sections of the news conference
as part of its news coverage. Remember one key consideration of a news
conference, however: The topic of the news conference, or the person
conducting a news conference, must be newsworthy or no one will show up.
News conferences are usually reserved for major announcements or for a time
when a well-known spokesperson is available. Also, it is hard to assure that
what you think is most important will be what the newspeopie use, so say it
often and make it catchy. For more information on working with the media,
see Chapter 7.
Newsletters
Siting a solid waste facility can take years, and newsletters can sustain interest
throughout the process. Typically, newsletters target those people who are
most interested in the issue, such as neighbors near potential sites, leaders of
interest groups, elected officials, agency representatives, or anyone who has
participated in public meetings or other public involvement activities.
-------
46 SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Sometimes mailing lists grow as large as several thousand people on very
controversial issues. Newsletters provide these people far more information
than the news media.
The value of a newsletter depends in part on effective production. A visually
attractive newsletter, containing plenty of graphics and written in simple,
everyday language, will usually be widely read. Definite costs are involved in
Newsletters provide far the staff time to write the newsletters, as well as in printing and mailing.
more Information than NevertheiesS} newsletters effectively keep people who are most interested in
ins news media. .. . •.,.,. f
the siting process informed of what is going on, at a level of detail you could
never expect to achieve through the media. Newsletters document that the
public has been kept fully informed throughout the process and provide good
background information in press kits (see below).
Instead of sending a newsletter to a special mailing list, a newsletter can be
designed to be sent out with the bill for garbage pick-up. Such a newsletter
usually requires significant format changes and condensing, but does reach a
larger audience.
A newsletter used as part of a public involvement program must be written
very objectively. If it is simply a "promotion piece" for the pre-determined
position of a governmental entity, you will lose all credibility. To ensure
objectivity and protect credibility, ask a citizen advisory group to review the
newsletter because such a group is usually very sensitive to political nuances.
Alternatively, the advisory committee could do the newsletter—as in
Hempstead, New York. In highly polarized situations, some agencies have
even contracted with a group—such as the League of Women Voters, which is
acceptable to most groups—to produce the newsletter. Or, a newsletter could
be published by the technical or environmental consultant, by the state, or by
some other "neutral" entity. All these efforts minimize the danger that the
newsletter will be seen as just paid advertising for a particular alternative.
Newspaper Inserts
One way to reach a whole community with the same information is to prepare
a newspaper insert, which might be an effective means of informing the public.
about the need for a solid waste facility, or for discussing the overall strategy
of mixing recycling, source reduction, incineration, and land disposal. An
insert is not a good technique, of course, if you want to keep the whole process
low key. The more people know about the process, the more people will want
to participate in the decision. But the analysis of numerous case studies
-------
TECHNIQUES FOR INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
47
Newspaper Inserts are
one way to inform a
broad public, not Just
the most actively
involved citizens.
suggests that the public's resentment from feeling inadequately informed is a
greater threat to the success of a siting process than the participation of more
people.
As long as the insert is prepared to the newspaper's specifications, newspapers
can deliver an insert for a moderate cost. This is one way to reach beyond just
the most actively involved citizens and inform the broader public at large.
Inserts can generate a lot of interest in a hurry. Be sure that the insert presents
information objectively. Using public funds to circulate information that is
seen as advocacy often stirs a strongly negative public reaction. Just like
newsletters, the more attractive the insert is and the easier it is to read, the
more widely it will be read.
News Releases ,
News releases should interest the media in doing a news story on your issue.
If you are in a smaller community, your story is very likely to receive attention
in the local paper. If you are in a larger community, you are competing with a
lot of other news stories. As a result, news releases often need a "hook," some
kind of slant or human interest feature to convince the media that
readers/viewers would be interested. Always include the name and number of
someone in your organization for the media to contact for more information.
Occasionally a news release is presented just the way you wrote it. But more
often a news release is used to convince an editor to do a story, and the
reporter assigned to the story will contact you for more information. Follow
up your initial mailing with a phone call to the editor. Oh larger newspapers,
stories about solid waste facilities are often assigned to the city or metro
editor, rather than to the managing editor.
Paid Advertisements
Paid advertisements are one sure way to make an announcement or present
iriformation to the public in newspapers or on radio or television. One major
consideration in paid advertising is public reaction to spending public funds.
The public is normally quite appreciative of paid advertisements announcing
public meetings, particularly if they are visually attractive. Occasionally,
though, people criticize large ads, even if they are providing information. Any
advertisement paid with public funds that is considered a form of advocacy is
likely to be criticized.
-------
48
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
With a visual
presentation you can
communicate more
Information In a short
tlma.
Presentations to Civic and Technical Groups
One effective way to communicate with people who are influential in the
community is to make presentations to civic groups, business association
meetings, environmental groups, neighborhood groups, or homeowners'
association meetings in neighborhoods near potential sites. Because you will
be making a number of presentations, preparing a slide show is a good idea. A
visual presentation is not only more interesting to the audience, you can also
communicate more information in a short time. You may be able to prepare
your slide show in modules, so that you can customize your slide show to
match the interest level of your audience.
One way to build the credibility for your technical studies is to make
presentations to professional societies of engineers, planners, or other
professional groups involved in solid waste issues. Tailor your presentation to
the technical interests of your audience. Such presentations help create a
general perception in the technical community that you are doing a
professionally competent study.
Often reporters will
turn to press kits as an
authoritative source of
Information.
Press Kits
It is always an advantage for reporters to understand the background of the
siting issue and the process you are following. That way, when a reporter gets
a call from an irate citizen complaining about the siting process the reporter
has a context in which to put that complaint. One way to help reporters is to
prepare a press kit that summarizes key information on the siting study. Often
a reporter under pressure to meet a deadline will find it difficult to contact you
by phone, but will turn to the press kit as an authoritative source of
information.
Typically a press kit consists of a folder with pockets for short summaries of
project need, the siting process, summaries of key technical studies, or
environmental documents. Keep in mind that reporters work under extreme
time pressures, so information must be in summary form. If you publish a
regular newsletter include past copies in the press kit; newsletters often
present the important background information at about the level of
information a reporter needs to prepare a story.
Once you have prepared a press kit, identify those reporters or editors who'
will be interested in the story and arrange to drop in, deliver the press kit, and
answer any questions on the spot. If the siting process starts to attract
-------
TECHNIQUES FOR INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
49
attention, be sure that you provide the press kit to any reporter who inquires
about the process. .
Public Service Announcements
Radio and television stations broadcast, without charge, a certain number of
announcements on behalf of .charities, governmental agencies, and community
groups. In particular, they are very likely to run announcements of public
meetings, events, or other opportunities for the public to participate. (Some
groups, hoping to have more impact with their radio announcements, submit
pre-recorded cassettes with background music or a celebrity announcer (like a
local political figure). The problem with public service announcements is the
lack of a guarantee that your announcement will be aired. If your
announcement is aired, it may be at odd hours when relatively few people are
listening.
Participation Techniques
Once the public has been informed, the next step is to provide forums or
mechanisms by which the public can express feelings, thoughts, or concerns
back, to you. Again, a number of techniques are available (see Table 6-2).
Advisory Groups/Task Forces
Next to public meetings, the technique most often used in siting studies is to
establish an advisory group. Advisory groups are useful in providing citizens'
perspectives throughout the siting process. Advisory groups can serve a
number of purposes, such as the following:,
• Help revise the siting process or anticipate public reaction to proposed
decisions;
• Provide communication between key constituencies;
• Educate you to the community's continuing concerns and inform interest
groups about the issues and the consequences of alternative actions;
• 'Provide continuity and help advisory group members understand the entire
process, allowing them to react to the more technical parts of the siting
process; and
• Provide a forum for attempting to achieve a consensus decision.
-------
TABLE 6-2. PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUES
Technique
Features
Advantages
Disadvantages
Advisory
groups/ task
forces
A group of representatives of key
interested parties is established.
May be a policy, technical, or
citizen advisory group.
Provide oversight to the siting
process. Promote communication
between key constituencies.
Anticipate public reaction to
publications or decisions. Provide
a forum for reaching consensus.
Potential for controversy exists if
"advisory" recommendations are
not followed. Requires substantial
commitment of staff time to
provide support to committees.
Focus groups
Small discussion groups established
to give "typical" reactions of the
public. Conducted by professional
facilitator. Several sessions may be
conducted with different groups.
Provide in-depth reaction to
publications, ideas, or decisions.
Good for predicting emotional
reactions.
Get reactions, but no knowledge of
how many people share those
reactions. Might be perceived as an
effort to manipulate the public.
Hotline
Widely advertised phone number to
handle questions or provide
centralized source of information
about the siting.
Gives people a sense that they
know whom to call. Provides a
one-step service of information.
Can handle two-way
communication.
Is only as effective as the person
answering the hotline phone.
Interviews
Face-to-face interviews with key
officials, interest group leaders, or
key individuals.
Can be used to anticipate issues or
anticipate the reactions of groups to
a decision. Can also be used to
assess "how are we doing."
Requires extensive staff time.
Hearings
Formal meetings where people
present formal speeches and
presentations.
May be used as a "wrap-up,
meeting" prior to final decision.
Useful in preparing a formal public
record for legal purposes.
Exaggerates differences. Does not
permit dialogue. Requires time to
organize and conduct.
Meetings
Less formal meetings for people to
present positions, ask questions,
and so forth.
Highly legitimate form for the
public to be heard on issues. May
be structured to permit small group
interaction—anyone can speak.
Unless small-group discussion
format is used, permits only limited
dialogue. May get exaggerated
positions or grandstanding.
Requires staff time to prepare for
meeting.
CONTINUED
-------
TABLE 6-2. PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUES (continued)
Technique
Workshops
Plebiscite
Polls
Features
Smaller meetings designed to
complete a task.
City wide election to decide where
or whether a facility should be
built.
Carefully designed questions are
asked of a portion of the public
selected as representative of public
opinion.
Advantages
Very useful for tasks such as
identifying siting criteria or
evaluating sites. Permits maximum
use of dialogue, good for
consensus-building.
Provides a definite, and usually
binding, decision on where or
whether a facility should be built.
Provides a quantitative estimate of
general public opinion.
Disadvantages
Limitations on size may require
several workshops in different
locations. Is inappropriate for large
audiences. Requires staff time for
multiple meetings.
"Campaign" is expensive and time-
consuming. General public may be
susceptible to uninformed
emotional arguments.
Provides a "snapshot" of public
opinion at a point in time—opinion
may change. Assumes all
viewpoints count equally in
decision. Costs money and must be
professionally designed.
m
o
o
rfi
Tl
O
33
Z
O
5
m
-a
2
5
-------
52
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Advisory groups must
be truly representative,
havo defined limits,
and be allotted
sufficient resources.
A task force can
commit the time to the
assignment that
policymakers cannot.
Many organizational issues must be faced in setting up advisory groups. First,
groups must be perceived as truly representative. This may require consulting
with all the key interests while establishing the group to ensure that you
include all the interests needed to make the group credible. One official in
Maricopa County said, "Whenever anyone complained, we simply put them
on the committee." Second, defining the limits of the group's authority is
essential. If you imagined a scale with "purely advisory" on one end and
"decision making" on the other, where would this group fall? These limits
must be understood in advance, preferably as part of a written mandate.
Third, working with an advisory group requires a significant commitment of
time and staff resources and should not be undertaken if you are not able or
willing to commit the resources to make it work well.
You may even want to establish several advisory groups to get the
involvement of different audiences. For example, you may need a policy
committee or steering committee of elected officials or agency heads from all
the involved communities or departments. You also might have a technical
advisory group of technical specialists from affected or reviewing agencies
and the organized groups and interests. This kind of group can get directly
involved in evaluating study methodologies and assessing the technical
adequacy of the studies in a way that a citizens' group, or even elected
officials, cannot. Finally—and this is the most frequent kind of advisory
group—you may want to establish a group composed of leaders of all the
interested groups and interests.
Task forces are a specific kind of advisory group. Although most advisory
groups are set up to last the life of the siting process, task forces usually
complete a specific task, then disband. A task force might, for example,
recommend criteria for site selection. Or, a technically oriented task force
might rank all the sites on the various criteria. Once the task force makes its
recommendation, then it ceases to exist. Part of the idea behind a task force is
that it can commit the time to the assignment that policymakers cannot. Also,
a number of issues may be resolved by consensus at the task force level,
reducing the number of controversial issues policymakers must address.
Unanimous task force recommendations may legitimize the recommendation
and facilitate the policy board's approval.
-------
TECHNIQUES FOR INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
53
Focus Groups
Some organizations and agencies have begun to use focus groups as an
alternative to polls. The advertising industry developed focus groups as an
alternative to expensive market research (which relies heavily on polling).
Focus groups are small discussion groups selected either to be random or to
approximate the demographics of the community. The focus group is
conducted by a trained moderator who draws out people's reactions to a
product or idea.
The focus group
explores people's
reactions.
The focus group explores people's reactions—it is not a representative
sampling of public opinion. Knowing these reactions, you may modify ideas
or present them in a way that either appeals to or avoids extreme responses.
Normally, several focus groups are held until the researchers are confident
they have valid information. In the context of a public involvement group,
however, there is a chance that conducting focus groups may be seen as an
effort to manipulate, rather than learn from the public. Even if researchers
gather useful information, like polls, the public does not see focus groups as a
substitute for other forms of direct participation.
Hotline
A hotline is a widely advertised phone number that gets the caller right to
someone who can answer questions. Usually, a hot line has several lines so
people do not get a busy signal. The number is given in newsletters, news
releases, meeting announcements, or anyplace where people are encouraged to
ask questions or comment on the siting process. Hotlines are actually a form
of two-way communication. Some people will call to ask a question, while
others will call to comment. A hotline can also be used to coordinate. For
example, advisory group members uncertain about the date of the next
meeting can call the hotline.
The key to an effective hotline is to have the right person at the receiving end
of the line. Callers must get the feeling that the person taking their calls is
really interested in what they have to say and is both knowledgeable and
responsive. If the person answering a call does not have all the information,
he or she must take responsibility to research it and get back to the caller.
-------
54
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Interviews often
provide Information
that cannot be
obtained any other
way.
Interviews
People will often provide much more information in a one-on-one discussion
than they will in a public forum. Although interviewing everyone in a
community is not possible, two to three days may provide enough time to
interview people representing all the key groups and neighborhoods. By no
means a scientific sampling, interviewing may provide quality and detailed
information. Also, by the time you have interviewed 15 to 20 community
leaders, you probably know enough about the situation to know each person's
role in the controversy.
Although interviews cannot substitute for more public forms of participation,
they often provide information that cannot be obtained any other way. In a
siting process lasting several years, you might want to conduct a round of
interviews near the beginning of the process to get information about what
issues to anticipate and one or two other rounds of interviews at key junctures
in the process to find out "how are we doing" and identify ways for resolving
issues.
Hearings, Meetings, and Workshops
Meetings of some kind, whether town meetings, public hearings, workshops,
or any of the many other kinds of meetings, are by far the most widely used
public involvement techniques.
Probably the most widely used technique is the public hearing. Public
hearings are rather formal meetings at which people present official statements
of position and assertions of fact. Regrettably, public hearings are not always
a particularly effective device for public involvement. They do a good job of
meeting legal requirements by preparing a formal record, but they do a poor
job of bringing people together to resolve problems. In fact, public hearings
tend to exaggerate differences, because during hearings leaders of
constituencies have to be seen defending their constituencies' interests. As a
result, positions taken by speakers during hearings are often more rigid and
extreme than those expressed in less formal settings. It may be necessary,
legally, to hold a public hearing at the end of the siting process, but the
genuine public involvement had better be done by then.
There are many other forms of public meetings. In New England, the town
meeting is an honored tradition. Originally the town meeting was a decision-
making meeting. Instead of having elected representatives make decisions,
-------
TECHNIQUES FOR INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
55
concerns and
opinions.
everyone in town showed up, spoke, and cast a vote (which had the force of
law). Although the spirit of the town meeting can still prevail, with everyone
coming together as equals trying to solve problems and make good decisions,
public involvement meetings almost never have legal binding power: Instead
they influence decisions made by elected officials or agencies. In fact, taking
votes during public involvement meetings should be discouraged.
-, Unlike the town meeting in which, theoretically, everyone in town was present
and Could participate in the vote, today's public meetings ordinarily are
Public meetings are attended by just a small part of the total population. The preponderance of
useful forums for opinion in any one direction may say more about how well some groups are
hearing all the different organized than about how the public at large feels about the issue. Public
meetings are useful forums for hearing all the different concerns and opinions
and for having the different groups hear each other. But they are not
necessarily accurate in reflecting the proportion of people in the larger
community holding the views expressed in the meeting.
Actually, very few rules, govern the format of a public meeting, except to
ensure that everyone gets a chance to be heard. For example, some public
meetings use a large group/small group format in which, following an opening
presentation, the audience breaks into small discussion groups. Afterward,
spokespersons from each of the small groups make a short presentation to the
full audience, summarizing the discussion in their small groups.
Some agencies have conducted televised public meetings, with opportunities
for the viewing audience to call in and make comments. A viewer's
comments might be taken by a moderator, much like a talk-show host, or
comments might be taken by volunteers on a bank of phones, such as those
used in telethons or public television auctions. Some communities find that a
number of small coffee klatches, informal meetings with a small group of
people meeting in a private home, are better for getting genuine involvement
than a single large meeting. The point is this: Do not limit your thinking
about what constitutes a public meeting; design a meeting format that fits your
particular purpose.
The first step in choosing a format is to clarify the purpose of your meeting. A
meeting format that may be very effective for communicating information to
the public may be very ineffective for getting information back from the
public or for resolving issues. The meeting format sho,uld reflect the purpose
-------
56
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
ThB workshop differs
from other meeting
formats primarily In
that It has a stated
purpose of completing
a specific assignment.
of the meeting and the audience you expect to participate (i.e., size, level of
information, hostile/apathetic).
The workshop has proven particularly effective in resolving issues. The
workshop differs from other meeting formats primarily in that it has a stated
purpose of completing a specific assignment. For example, a workshop might
be designed to get agreement on the criteria that will be used to evaluate
alternative sites. A workshop also might be used to eliminate sites that do not
meet the siting criteria or to get agreement on the actions that are needed to
mitigate any negative effects of a facility.
Because workshops are highly interactive, they do not work well with very
large groups. When the number of participants exceeds 20 to 25 people,
achieving the kind of interaction you want is difficult, although using some
form of large group/small group format is possible. This means that
workshops are often targeted at leaders of organized groups or vocal interests,
not so much at "the person on the street." To reduce the danger that the group
is not representative, the participants in workshops must—even if they are a
leadership group—represent the full spectrum of opinion in the community.
Trying to reach agreement if key viewpoints are not represented in the
discussion does not work.
Workshops can be aimed at either policy issues or at technical issues, with the
participants changing depending on the purpose. If the workshop's purpose is
to evaluate how well each site meets certain technical criteria, then it is
appropriate for technical experts representing the interested parties to
participate. But if the workshop requires decisions that weigh how important
one criterion is versus another, policymakers and leaders from the various
interests should participate.
Plebiscite
The ultimate test of whether a community supports siting a facility is a direct
vote on the issue. In some communities the city council, or other appropriate
elected body, can legally put an issue on the ballot for the next election. In
other communities, changes might have to be made in the law before such a
vote could be legally binding, although advisory plebiscites are usually
possible. Some people argue strongly on behalf of this form of direct
democracy. Others argue just as vehemently that such an approach
undermines the fundamentals of our representative form of government.
-------
TECHNIQUES FOR INVOLVING THE PUBLIC 57
If a plebiscite is used, it should still be preceded by active public involvement,
so that whatever proposal is put before the voters takes into account the
concerns of the interests within the community and has the credibility of open,
visible participation during its development.
Polls
Most participatory techniques do not outline the proportion of views in the
community at large. Is the group you are hearing from just a small, vocal
minority, or do they speak for the majority of the community? Polls let you
quantitatively assess community viewpoints. But as experience with election
Polls let you polls show, polls do not always predict the outcome. First, polls give, a
quantitatively assess snapshot of one moment in time. If people are still learning about an issue, a
cornmunity viewpoints, poll will tell how they feel given their present level of knowledge, but may not
reflect how people will react once they learn more about the issue. Second, if
the decision is going to be made by an elected body rather than by an election,
then a poll may not reflect reality. A poll treats each person as essentially
equal, even though one person may not care much about the issue while
another will lie down in front of a bulldozer.
Ultimately, people who care deeply enough about an issue to devote time and
energy to it will always have more political influence than people who do not
care about the issue. In addition to the above cautions, polls cost money and
qualified pollsters must design and administer them. Polls can, however,
serve multiple purposes for the public official looking for public input and
reaction on other issues. Polls are helpful and informative, but do not replace
the need for other forms of direct participation by the interested parties.
Putting It All Together
A comprehensive public involvement program is a sizeable effort, requiring
careful planning and a significant commitment of time and staff. But the
alternative may be to go through the entire siting process and be unable to site
anything.
No one public involvement program meets all circumstances. That is why
Chapter 5 proposed a detailed method to analyze exactly what you hope to
accomplish with the public, or which parts of the public are important to reach
at particular stages in the siting process. This kind of analysis provides the
framework within which you can select techniques appropriate to your
situation.
-------
58
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
The Appendix contains a detailed public involvement plan for a siting process.
This plan shows how different techniques relate in a coherent program. The
effectiveness of public involvement does not result from using a single public
involvement technique, but from combining involvement and participation
techniques into a total program.
To illustrate how important it is that techniques be interrelated, assume that
you want to hold a public meeting to evaluate alternative sites. Here are some
techniques you might use for a set of meetings.
• Suppose the meeting format most suitable for evaluating alternative sites is
a workshop format. Rather than holding one large meeting, hold a series
of workshops, one for each neighborhood with a potential site.
• To announce the workshops, use paid advertising as well as contacting the
media to arrange feature stories describing the major topics to be covered
in the workshops.
• In all likelihood technical or environmental reports have been prepared that
have information related to the topics to be discussed in the workshops.
Mail out technical reports or environmental documents to key agencies
and groups for review prior to the workshops.
• Prior to the workshops, issue a newsletter summarizing all the key
information people will need to participate in the workshops. Before
printing the newsletter, ask the citizen advisory group review the proposed
copy of the newsletter to be sure it seems objective and impartial.
• If the topic of the workshops is of concern to local elected officials, hold
individual briefings for selected officials. For example, a council member
needs to know whether his or her electoral district has a site under
consideration.
• Consider making presentations to civic and/or technical groups prior to
the workshops to stimulate interest.
• If your community has cable television, arrange to broadcast the
workshops on the community channel. Or establish a hotline for people's
comments.
• To tell people about the outcome of the workshops, send them another issue
of the newsletter, or simply a report summarizing public comment. If
major decisions resulted from the workshops, issue a news release
describing the decision.
-------
TECHNIQUES FOR INVOLVING THE PUBLIC 59
As the above description clearly shows, public involvement is not a matter of
selecting a single technique, but of combining many techniques into a unified
program.
A few cautions should be observed, however:
Generally speaking, avoid public hearings. Public hearings tend to
exaggerate differences rather than bring people together. Highly interactive
formats, such as workshops, cut down the chances for posturing and rabble-
rousing and are usually more satisfactory for the average participant.
Advisory groups can be very helpful, but be aware of their limitations. The
two biggest problems with advisory groups are discussed below.
• Uncertainty about the group's charter—exactly what its authority is or is
not—may cause conflict and hard feelings.
• Advisory groups can spend so much time agreeing on procedures that they
drive away people concerned with substance. The need for elaborate
procedures can be sharply reduced if an advisory group agrees to work on a
consensus basis rather than by majority vote. Because no advisory group
can ever exactly represent the mix of opinion in the community, a close
majority vote only tells you that the community remains divided.
The public information components of your public involvement plan must
be objective. Public information documents cannot be treated like public
relations pieces, designed to "sell" a particular point of view. Their purpose is
to provide the information the public needs to participate in an informed
manner, and if people are to do that wisely, they must be given objective,
balanced, and credible information.
Play it straight with the media. Provide all the important information
objectively and factually. If you do something the media finds manipulative,
repairing lost credibility may take years (see Chapter 7 for more information
on the media).
Without feedback, you provide no rewards to stimulate further participation.
-Be sure to provide "feedback loops"; that is, if you ask the public to
participate, always get back to people promptly to tell them what you heard,
how you will respond to the comments, and what comes next as a result of
those comments. The primary motivation for participation is the sense that
someone can have an impact.
-------
60
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Never take elected officials by surprise. Do not, for example, announce that a
site has been selected in an official's electoral district without briefing him or
her first. If an official finds out from a constituent, he or she will never forget
the embarrassment you caused.
-------
COMMUNICATING RISKS MORE EFFECTIVELY
CHAPTER 7
COMMUNICATING RISKS MORE EFFECTIVELY
Highlights:
• Risk communication is the exchange of information between risk managers and the
general public about a particular hazard—what can be done—and what is being done to
manage the hazard and its consequences.
• The primary goal of risk communication is to help active participants, and even
potentially active observers, make informed contributions to the decision-making
process and make informed decisions about how to reduce their own risks.
• Risk communicators should be concerned with two different activities—improving the
delivery of risk messages and improving the content of risk messages.
• Building strong working relationships with the media is not an easy task, but the news
media are an important source of information for the majority of the population.
The Role of Risk Communication in the Siting Process
Risk communication is the exchange of information between risk managers
and the general public about a particular hazard—what can be done and what
is being done to manage the hazard and its consequences. Risk
communication does not simply "educate the public"; it emphasizes a two-
way information exchange in which risk managers also listen and learn from
public concerns. This information exchange is critical to designing a
responsive, participatory siting process.
Unfortunately, many siting processes are undermined by public relations
campaigns aimed exclusively at persuading public opinion. For example, a
slick newsletter might convey information on the track record of the facility's
operator, but the public will see the newsletter as an attempt to co-opt or
brainwash people into accepting a particular option.
-------
62
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
The primary goal of risk communication in a siting process is to help active
participants, and even potentially active observers, make informed
contributions to the decision-making process for the facility. Members of the
public also should be able to make informed decisions about how to reduce
their own risks from a new facility. The following statement by the National
Research Council (1989) could be used to guide a risk communication .
program:
Risk communication is successful only to the extent that it
raises the level of understanding of relevant issues or actions
and satisfies those involved that they are adequately informed
within the limits of available knowledge.
For example, in the siting of solid waste facilities, communicators need to
convey to the public what is known about the envkonmental and health risks
associated with a new landfill or incinerator, and about the precautions being
'taken to manage those risks. You also have to give the public information on
a range of other siting issues (e.g., property values, air quality, noise, traffic)
1 that affect an individual's sense of risk or uncertainty from a new facility.
But, officials need to avoid the pitfalls described below in developing risk
communication programs.
Pitfall #1 is assuming that developing a risk communication program will
solve all the problems with the siting process. Risk communication is only
one element of an adequate siting strategy. A risk communication program
cannot resolve all the siting issues—but a bad risk communication program
can kill a good project.
Pitfall #2 is assuming that developing an effective risk communication
program is an easy task. Communicating technical information is by nature a
complex activity—no simple solutions exist. A commitment to planning,
management, and evaluation is necessary for a successful risk communication
program.
•
Pitfall #3 is assuming that developing a risk communication program
guarantees its success. Because risk communication takes place in a
complicated, dynamic environment, even a good program may not enjoy
complete success. Officials should have realistic expectations about a
program's impact.
-------
COMMUNICATING RISKS MORE EFFECTIVELY
63
Developing a Risk Communication Program
The five steps in
developing a risk
communication
program:
1. Identify risk
communication
objectives for each
step in the siting
process.
2. Determine the
information
exchange needed to
complete each step
in the siting process.
3. Identify the groups
or interests with
whom information
must be exchanged.
4. Develop appropriate
risk messages for
each targeted
audience.
5. Identify the
appropriate
channels for
communicating risks
to various segments
of the public.
Developing a risk communication program at the beginning of the siting
process will increase the likelihood that the public has access to useful
information when it is most needed. Risk communication is a natural and
logical extension of an adequate public involvement program, so the five steps
in developing a risk communication discussed below overlap with some major
points made in Chapter 5.
Public involvement, by itself, is insufficient for a comprehensive siting
strategy. Although it makes sense to plan the risk communication program as
a separate activity, you should eventually integrate risk communication into
the public involvement plan (see Appendix). The resulting document should
be a comprehensive planning tool that integrates all siting activities.
Keeping a written plan or record of the risk communication activities—
developing information materials, delivering information materials, and
managing the effort—will provide a data base for evaluating the effectiveness
of the program (see Chapter 10 for more information on evaluation). From
this record you will be able to learn from your mistakes as well as your
successes. And you can share the plan with other agency personnel to
enhance consistency and accuracy in siting activities throughout the process.
Step 1: Identify the Risk Communication Objectives for Each Step in
the Siting Process
Each step in the siting process will have one or more risk communication
objectives (Figure 7-1). Each objective should describe what you want to
accomplish with the public at each step in the siting process. Some of these
objectives will overlap with your public involvement objectives (see Chapter 5
for a review).
Step 2: Determine the Information Exchange Needed to Complete Each
Step in the Siting Process
Obtain specific information from each group or interest, rather than
transferring information from another setting. For example, a community
drawing water from local wells might be more sensitive about the risks of
ground-water contamination than a community drawing water from a reservoir
miles away. Even in comparable siting contexts, responses may vary
considerably between communities. Listening to the public will tell you what
information people need to make informed decisions.
-------
64
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Examples of Risk Communication Objectives
Improve public knowledge of environmental and health risks associated with
alternative technologies—including the risk of doing nothing.
Increase opportunities for public officials to get information from the public
regarding their concerns about potential risks from alternative technologies.
Increase public awareness of the safety features of the facility.
Increase public awareness of how people can participate in the siting process
and what actions they can take to reduce their personal risk.
Figure 7-1
The nature of of the information to be exchanged depends on what you are
trying to accomplish with the public at each stage in the siting process—your
public involvement and risk communication objectives. While planning your
risk communication activities, make a checklist to ensure your communication
materials are complete. If your risk message is incomplete, then the technical
analysis is incomplete—and more data are needed. Figure 7-2 is a typical risk
message checklist.
Preparing a risk message checklist will save you from the backtracking that
often results when an inadequate risk communication program leads to intense
public opposition. And, equally important, a checklist can help you avoid
costly communication errors that can destroy your credibility with the public.
Step 3: Identify the Groups or Interests with Whom Information Must
Be Exchanged
As discussed in Chapter 4, each step of the siting process involves a different
combination of active groups or interests. Each of these segments of the
public may be reached by different types of information and different
communication techniques. For example, a homeowners association will have
different concerns and different information needs than members of the
technical advisory committee. Also, some risk communication activities will
be geared toward members of the general public, whether or not they choose
to participate.
-------
COMMUNICATING RISKS MORE EFFECTIVELY 65
Risk Message Checklist
Information About the Nature of Risks
1. What are the hazards of concern?
2. What is the probability of exposure to each hazard?
3. What is the distribution of exposure?
4. What is the probability of each type of harm from a given exposure to each
hazard?
5. What are the sensitivities of different populations to each hazard?
6. How do exposures interact with exposures to other hazards?
7. What are the characteristics of the hazard?
8. What is the total population risk?
Information About the Nature of Benefits
1. What are the benefits associated with the hazard?
2. What is the probability that the projected benefit will actually follow the activity in
question?
3. What are the characteristics of the benefits?
4. Who benefits and in what way?
5. How many people benefit and how long do benefits last?
6. Which groups get disproportionate shares of the benefits?
7. What is the total benefit?
Information on Alternatives
1. What are the alternatives to the hazard in question?
2. What is the effectiveness of each alternative?
3. What are the risks and benefits of each alternative and of not acting?
4. What are the costs and benefits of each alternative and how are they
distributed?
Uncertainties in Knowledge About Risks
1. What are the weaknesses of available data?
2. What are the assumptions on which estimates are based?
3. How sensitive are the estimates to changes in assumptions?
4. How sensitive is the decision to changes in the estimates?
5. What other risk and risk control assessments have been made and why are they
different from those now being offered?
Information on Management
1. Who is responsible for the decision?
2. What issues have legal importance?
3. What constrains the decision?
4. What resources are available?
Source: National Research Council, 1989. -.
Figure 7-2
-------
66
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Step 4: Develop Appropriate Risk Messages for Each Targeted
Audience
Communicators must make important decisions regarding the content of risk
messages. The appropriateness of the content of risk messages will be
influenced by the degree of interest, expertise, or education level of the
targeted audience, as well as the stage of the siting process. While a brief,
educational brochure on the solid waste dilemma might be appropriate for the
general public during the early stages of the process, a detailed technical
report might be necessary for the technical advisory group to debate
incinerator technologies.
The effectiveness of a risk message can be judged by whether the targeted
audience is satisfied that the risk message conveys the necessary information
in a clear and useful way. Although this may seem obvious, effective risk
messages are difficult to develop in practice.
Understanding People's Perceptions of Risk—People develop risk
perceptions through judgments about the likelihood and seriousness of
potential harm or negative consequences from a hazard. Developing effective
risk messages requires understanding how people perceive risks and why
some risks are more acceptable than others.
For example, the public has responded halfheartedly to information on the
health risks from radon, in part because the risks are voluntary, difficult to
visualize, and are not imposed by an outside individual or company. On the
other hand, the so-called "negative" aspects of landfills—odor, noise,
wastes—more easily conjure perceptions among the general public of
uncontrolled environmental and health risks.
Scientists and engineers often talk about risk in terms of expected fatalities.
The public, in contrast, views risk hazards with "intuitive" risk judgments,
which include characteristics aside from the probability of negative effects
(such as whether the risk is voluntary, dreaded, or controllable). Professional
risk assessors often view the public's intuitive judgments as inexpert or
irrational. But ignoring these concerns will only increase people's hostility.
Many of the following key characteristics of public risk perceptions are taken
from a New Jersey EPA risk communication manual prepared by Rutgers
University (Hance, Chess, and Sandman, 1987). Communicators can use
these characteristics of risk perceptions to determine what information the
community needs to make informed decisions and to develop effective public
education materials.
-------
COMMUNICATING RISKS MORE EFFECTIVELY 67
Voluntary risks are accepted more readily than those that are imposed.
Communities react angrily if they feel coerced into accepting a new solid
waste facility. This reaction against the siting process and the agency
personnel ultimately leads to a greater perception of risk.
Risks under individual control are accepted more readily than those
under government control. In contrast to a risk such as driving without a
seat belt, neighbors of potential sites have little control over risks from the
site other than the extreme case of selling their homes and moving
elsewhere.
Risks that seem fair are more acceptable than those that seem unfair. If
the benefits and negative impacts are spread unevenly over the community
or county, people will perceive the risks of the facility as being unfair and
less acceptable. For example, they are more likely to feel it is fair to be
responsible for their own waste disposal, but unfair to accept wastes from
another community.
Risk information that comes from trustworthy sources is more believable
than information from untrustworthy sources. If the public perceives a
communicator as untrustworthy, then the information will be dismissed as
biased, misleading, or otherwise unbelievable. Officials and individuals
with vested interests in the outcome of the process will be seen as less
credible, though some of the animosity can be diffused by admitting the
biases up front.
Risks that are "dreaded" are less acceptable than those that carry less
dread. For example, ground-water contamination will be feared by the
community more than risks from driving without seat belts, even when the
former poses a lower risk to individuals. Because ground-water
contamination is associated with cancer, which is dreaded more than a
traffic accident, the perceived risks will be more serious.
Risks that are undetectable create more fear than detectable risks. As an
experienced war correspondent said at Three Mile Island, "at least in a war
you know you haven't been hit yet." Similarly, risks with effects that take
years to detect will be more likely to be feared.
Physical distance from a site influences the acceptability of risk. Recent
research (Smith and Desvousges, 1986) found that people living near
hazardous waste landfills were willing to pay between $200 and $500 per
mile to move the landfill away from their neighborhood.
Rumor, misinformation, dispute, and the sheer volume of information all
may interact to give a misperception of risk. This "social amplification" is
made worse by incomplete or inaccurate information, poor timing, and
other social and political dynamics in the community.
-------
68
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Guidelines for Risk Comparisons—The public is often skeptical of risk
information that compares one risk with another. Nonetheless, for both
policymakers and the public, it is useful to think of risk estimates in terms of
comparisons. So policymakers need to put these comparisons in contexts that
are both understandable and acceptable to the public.
Research by Covello, et al. (1988) on risk communication issues points to a
number of approaches for presenting quantitative risk estimates in ways that
enhance the prospect of public acceptance. All are based on avoiding these
pitfalls.
• Comparisons between voluntary (e.g., driving, smoking, drinking diet
beverages) and involuntary (e.g., waste management facility) risks;
• Messages that trivialize risks (e.g., living near a facility is no more
dangerous than eating peanut butter); and
• Comparisons between non-sitbstitutable risks (e.g., flying in an airplane and
living near a landfill).
These pitfalls can be avoided with careful planning and delivery of
information. For example, let audiences themselves help define the kind of
information to be provided; explain estimation procedures and their
uncertainties; avoid simple dichotomies like "safe" and "unsafe"; and offer
several, rather than single, comparisons.
The following two groups of guidelines illustrate some preferred kinds of risk
comparisons (Covello, et al., 1988).
Group 1: First Choice—Most Acceptable
• Comparisons of the same risk at two different times (e.g., retrofitting a
resource recovery facility with additional air emissions controls, and
comparing the pre- and post-retrofit risk levels);
• Comparisons with a standard (e.g., comparing state-of-the art landfill
risks of exposure to a certain pollutant with EPA or state standards for
the same pollutant); and
• Comparisons with different estimates of the same risk (e.g., the project
developer's estimate of risk is "X" whereas the community group's
estimate is "Y").
-------
COMMUNICATING RISKS MORE EFFECTIVELY 69
Group 2: Second Choice—Somewhat Less Acceptable
• Comparisons of the risk of doing something versus not doing it (e.g.,
when a resource recovery project proponent argues that not building the
facility will mean a risk level substantially greater than if such a facility
comes on-line);
• Comparisons of alternative solutions to the same problem (e.g.,
handling waste with a resource recovery facility is preferable to a
landfill by a factor of 3, or vice versa); and
• Comparisons with the same risk as experienced in other places (e.g., air
toxics emitted from the proposed resource facility are estimated to result
in 5 excess cancer cases; the same facility operating in the southern part
of the state may lead to 15 excess cases as a result of a higher
population density around the site).
Following these guidelines will enhance the likelihood that risk messages have
the intended educational effect on the public, rather than creating more
controversy.
Another potential communication tool is a risk ladder presenting a vertical
comparison of many different kinds of risk (see Figure 7-3). In several focus
groups, researchers have used risk ladders to elicit the perceived risk from
hazardous waste exposure. This example also illustrates the importance of
focus groups as a tool to pretest communication materials before distributing
them to the public.
The comments of participants in a progressive sequence of sessions showed
that the first version of the ladder did not offer sufficiently diverse risk
information. The participants wanted more coverage of the lower risks and
wanted to find out about risks that were more likely related to their specific
occupations. They also suggested several changes in the ladder that resulted
in a consistent visual focus on the the center of the ladder. Their comments
indicated that breaks in the ladder would help the investigators to present a
wide range of values and yet keep the scale and help reinforce the differences.
The focus group reactions to the different versions of the risk ladder also
highlight an important limitation of using risk ladders. People found the
ladder useful in trying to think about their own situations. They emphasized,
however, that the ladder would not have worked as a communication device to
convince them that the risks from hazardous waste would be "acceptable"
because the ladder includes risks with very different characteristics.
-------
70
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
The Risk Ladder
(Black) 16
(Magenta)
Stuntman
All Causes
Smoker*
Skydiver
(White)
12
11
10
09
08
07
Shipbuilder/Truckdriver
Stroke
Homebuilder
Police Officer
Diabetes
Home Accident
(Green) 05
04
(Blue)
01
Banker/Engineer
Insurance Agent
Home Fire
Airplane
Poisoning
Flood
*At least one pack per day.
Source: Smith, Desvousges, et al. (1987).
Figure 7-3
2,000 of 100,000
869.5 of 100,000
300 of 100,000
200 of 100,000
99 of 100,000
76 of 100,000
47 of 100,000
22 of 100,000
15.1 of 100,000
11 of 100,000
6 of 100,000
4 of 100,000
2.8 of 100,000
0.8 of 100,000
0.6 of 100,000
.05 of 100,000
-------
COMMUNICATING RISKS MORE EFFECTIVELY
71
News media are one
of the most important
communication
channels, but are also
a major source of
frustration for public
officials.
Step 5: Identify the Appropriate Channels for Communicating Risks to
Various Segments of the Public
As discussed earlier, different communication channels reach different
segments of the public. Risk information should be delivered by credible
sources, which may vary depending on whom you ask. For example, farmers
in a rural county might not view the urban-based media as a credible source
and instead might get their news from a trade publication.
Many public involvement techniques (e.g., advisory committees, public
meetings) serve a dual purpose of gathering information from the public and
as being legitimate and effective channels for communicating information
back to the public. Chapter 6 describes these techniques in detail.
News media offer one of the most important communication channels, but are
also a major source of frustration for public officials. The next section
describes how to improve working relationships with the media.
Building Strong Working Relationships With the Media
As the major channel for reaching broad segments of the public, the media
will continue to be a prominent player in risk communication. Newspapers
and television have two important characteristics for communicating
information to the public: access and credibility. Newspapers and television
are the most accessible sources of information for the majority of the
population, and, for the most part, are seen by the public as credible sources of
information on community issues.
Many public officials have expressed intense dissatisfaction with the role of
the media in communicating risks and other information about solid waste
facility sitings. This dissatisfaction usually stems from excessive coverage of
political controversy, disagreements between citizens and official sources, or
incomplete coverage of a particular issue.
Officials' frustration in working with the media often stems from a lack of
knowledge about how the media operate, what drives the reporter in
developing stories, and what limits the reporter's opportunity to provide the
"desired" story. Reporters, editors, and producers have constraints that
influence how they approach a story, ranging from personal political views
and deadlines to competence and professionalism.
-------
72
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Informed coverage of
the project, and the
waste problem Itself,
often become
secondary to high-
profile stories of
danger, fear, and
personalities.
The rules of successful reporting do not provide the perfect forum for
communicating risk. Informed coverage of the project, and the waste problem
itself, often become secondary to high-profile stories of danger, fear, and
personalities. Nevertheless, a reporter's primary objective is to prepare a
balanced story, emphasizing accuracy and objectivity. For example, a
newspaper article about the results of an environmental impact study might
include the major points found in an executive summary of the report as well
as an interview with a critical local resident. From the journalist's point of
view, he or she has given a balanced story. But the risk communicator might
be dissatisfied with the equal time being given to a non-expert.
By simplifying the issue to a "manageable" size, the media appeal to a larger
audience. Communicators must be aware that the journalist's role is to
provide information—not to educate. Journalists themselves often are not
equipped to understand the complexities of risk analysis and are usually more
interested in the politics of the siting process than in the nature and extent of
the risks. This is especially true at the local level or for general news media.
Understanding these constraints and biases, the communicator should tailor
the risk information in the most relevant way. Most successful sitings have
had strong media backing. So it is important to design an effective
communication strategy that integrates the media with other channels for
delivering information to the public.
Given the importance of the media in the communication of risk information,
members of the media should be considered legitimate participants in the siting
process. This does not mean giving them equal status in the decision-making
process, but they should be full participants in the dialogue. The following
guidelines should help in designing a strategy for providing risk information to
the media.
Provide the Media Advance Notice
Positive media profiles are essential to building a credible local image. Waste
managers and public officials should identify the editors and producers who
will likely control reports and editorials on the facility siting. Arrange a
private briefing to inform them about the project, the siting strategy, and
upcoming events. If the media have background information in advance they
will be better prepared to report the story on the day of the announcement.
-------
COMMUNICATING RISKS MORE EFFECTIVELY 73
Be careful about providing any sensitive information that has not been
Be careful about ,,,.,-,, « , •,• i -n
providing any sensitive released to the public. For example, you can tell the media that you will
information that has announce the final site selection on a certain date and give them background
not been released to information on the site selection process, criteria, and so on. However, if you
the public. ^Q not want ^j^ to repOrt where the site is, do not tell them.
Journalists rely on official sources for their stories, including elected officials,
knowledgeable civil servants, and community leaders. Elected public
officials, therefore, can influence the content of the news. You should also
give key public officials advance notice before releasing information to the
public so that their comments are informed and consistent. Remember, the
integrity of the spokesperson will influence public perceptions of the project.
Joint statements with other credible sources will also improve the credibility
of the information and the decision-making process.
Deliver Information in a Usable Format
Providing summaries of key points can influence the content of a story.
Journalists under strict deadlines can excerpt information from prepared
materials. In addition, journalists can use prepared information to educate
themselves on risks and risk-related activities. In addition, by preparing visual
information for use in print or television production you can influence the type
of information shown and develop good working relationships with the media.
Be Honest and Be Prepared
Using the risk communication checklist provided earlier in this chapter will
help you anticipate troubling questions. It is best to admit that you do not
know the answer to a question. Recognize that difficult questions will arise
and a good answer may not be available. If you do not know the answer, it is
best to say so. Do not make promises that you cannot keep. For example,
saying "I'll tell you on Friday how long it will take to develop that
information" may be better than saying "I think we can have that information
in three months or so."
First impressions will set the tone of the process and will have a strong impact
on the media's final position. Providing the media with misleading
information, deception, and incomplete information may lead them to produce
a damaging news story.
-------
74
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTE
Nothing destroys
reputations and
credibility faster than a
perceived scandal,
except a real one.
Provide Open Access to Information
Try to meet the information needs of the media and give them access to key
officials. Return calls from newspeople promptly—otherwise someone else's
input will be used instead. Journalists are attracted by a cover-up, and if they
perceive that important information is being withheld from the public they will
investigate further. Nothing destroys reputations and credibility faster than a
perceived scandal—except a real one.
-------
BUILDING CREDIBILITY FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION 75.
CHAPTER 8
BUILDING CREDIBILITY FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Highlights:
• Technical experts, such as city engineers and planners, are often surprised that in the
midst of a controversy an unsupported statement can be as believable to the public as
expensive, state-of-the-art studies.
• Although the public can be involved in developing the study plan and selecting
consultants, officials should make use of outside technical experts to review and
endorse study plans and methodological assumptions.
• Taking steps to protect technical credibility reduces the chances that opponents will
gain political support by questioning the adequacy of Jechnical studies.
Understanding the Conflict
Throughout the guidebook, public mistrust of technical information has been
highlighted as a major issue. Communicating technical information remains a
crucial part of the siting process—informing public officials and citizens
about the level of risks from alternative technologies, the potential danger to
the environment and public health, and the effectiveness and reliability of
safeguards. Two of the most important goals for risk communicators are
building the credibility of technical information in the eyes of the public and
improving the relevance of technical studies to public concerns.
Technical experts, such as city engineers and planners, are often surprised that
in the midst of a controversy an unsupported statement can be as believable to
the public as expensive, state-of-the-art studies. Once sides are polarized,
people look more at who is communicating the information more than at the
basis for the information. In fact, in highly polarized situations, some people
will look for credible information only from someone who already agrees with
their position.
-------
76
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
People assume that once an issue is controversial, all sides are using
information tactically in an effort to "win," or to convince the public. That is,
all sides release the information that supports their cases persuasively and
withhold information that hurts their cases. Since local governments are
usually seen as advocates for solid waste facilities, the public views technical
information and studies produced by such entities as part of that advocacy,
whether or not this is true.
The fundamental
principle behind most
actions you can take to
protect credibility Is
that visibility breeds
confidence.
This antagonism is a difficult idea for many governmental entities to accept.
When you are working long hours to site a facility that is desperately needed
by the community, it is hard to imagine that others will question your
integrity, will challenge your technical competence, and may even accuse you
of manipulating technical information to produce a desired result.
But think about other agencies you view as proponents of water development
or highway construction, for example. Don't you find yourself questioning
information produced by those agencies, and tend to dismiss their reports as
justifications for actions they want to take anyway? When someone who is a
strong Advocate for a project justifies the project with new growth projections,
don't you find yourself suspicious of those projections, and aren't those
suspicions sometimes justified? Why would others react to you differently
from how you react to other advocates? Mistrust may not be fair, but it does
seem to be characteristic of political conflict.
The situation is not without hope. If you are going to protect and maintain the
credibility of technical information throughout the siting process, you need to
take steps early in the siting process, before the situation becomes
controversial. Once the situation is polarized and you are seen as an advocate,
restoring credibility is difficult.
The fundamental principle behind most actions you can take to protect
credibility is that visibility breeds confidence. If, during the early stages of the
study, leaders of the various interests can oversee or participate in your plans
to do the studies, review the assumptions and methodologies used, and even
participate in selecting technical consultants, they will be more willing to
accept the results of those studies. You have to get enough acceptance for
how you are conducting the studies so that people will accept the results of the
studies, even if they do not like the results. This groundwork has to be built at
the front end of the process.
-------
BUILDING CREDIBILITY FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION
77
Steps to Build Credibility
Here are some steps you can take to build credibility for technical information.
Step 1: Anticipate the Issues That Will Emerge
The first step in building credibility is anticipating and analyzing the issues
that are likely to arise. Often these issues are already known, although you
may hope they will not come up in your particular community. One way to
anticipate issues is to conduct a round of interviews with representatives of the
key interests within the community. As discussed in the last several chapters,
key informant interviews often successfully identify most issues in advance,
even though these issues may be small concerns at the time. Another way to
identify issues is to obtain case studies of other communities' experiences in
siting solid waste facilities.
Steps to Build
Credibility for
Technical Information
1. Anticipate the issues
that will emerge. .
2. Get participation in
developing the study
plan.
3. Validate
methodological
assumptions.
4. Invite public
Involvement in
consultant selection.
5. Provide technical
assistance to the
public. -
6. Use an outside body
to review technical
studies.
7. Present technical
information in
understandable
language.
Once you have identified the issues, you need to-do the following three things:
Identify studies that will be needed to resolve technical questions, or
questions of risk. For example, if you know that incinerator emissions will be
a major issue, design studies to give solid answers about emissions. If you
can reasonably anticipate that ground-water contamination will be an issue,
design studies to answer these questions. There is a tendency to postpone
expensive studies and hope that the issue will not come up. The problem with
postponing studies is that when questions do come up, getting the studies in
motion to answer those concerns can take months. Meanwhile, opponents of
the project continue to make assertions about risks and problems for all those
months, and these assertions go unanswered except for "we're studying that."
The result is that the studies are always too little, too late. Once you are in a
reactive mode, with opponents creating the issues and the city reacting, the
opponents hold the upper hand.
Develop a strategy for answering questions about issues until these studies
are complete. With the question of emissions from incinerators, for example,
what information can you get to address this issue? Do not just accept a
manufacturer's figures on emissions. Be a little skeptical, like the public will
be. What has actually happened in other communities with these kinds of
facilities? Are the claims based on proven technology? Gather this
information so that when the questions come up you are clearly on top of the
issue. Do not be afraid to say "we don't know." But be sure to give a time
frame for getting back with an answer.
-------
78
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
Begin to identify and evaluate alternative strategies to mitigate potential
impacts. This topic is discussed in more detail in Chapter 9. The reason for
this step, though, is that you cannot just say "trust us." You have to show a
genuine willingness to come to grips with the fact that there are likely to be
impacts and to be willing to try to solve these problems.
Step 2: Get Participation in Developing the Study Plan
Normally, at the front end of a siting process, technical staff will develop a
study plan that specifies what issues will be studied, to what level of detail,
and by whom. Then you will select technical consultants to perform parts of
the work. Or, you may select the consultants first, then develop the study plan
with the consultants once they are hired. Often these study plans are
submitted to policy boards for comment, but most policy boards, such as the
planning commission or city council, are not able to provide a detailed critique
and simply have to rely on the staff. But once the issue heats up, groups will
often charge that the study plan was inadequate, did not address key issues,
used the wrong assumptions, and so on.
One mechanism for addressing this problem is to use a "scoping process" like
the one the federal government requires in the early stages of preparing an
environmental impact statement. The idea of the scoping process is to get all
the groups and agencies who are going to review the environmental
documents to state their concerns in advance and discuss what studies should
be done to address these concerns. In reality, the scoping process has proven
effective in some cases and totally perfunctory in other cases. But the idea
remains valid. In fact, the more involved these groups and agencies are in
designing the study plan, the more committed they are to living with the
results of the studies.
One mechanism for getting participation in a study plan is to hold a technical
workshop, during which technical experts from all the reviewing agencies and
interested groups review a draft plan in some detail and attempt to develop a
plan they can all agree on. The key here is to have a high level of
involvement and interaction. Structuring the workshop so you get real
interaction and a real sense of developing the plan together greatly increases
the level of emotional commitment. Communities should make use of experts
in relevant fields, drawing on expertise from universities, technical
organizations, and other unbiased parties. The findings should be presented to
the technical advisory committee.
-------
BUILDING CREDIBILITY FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION
79
Citizen advisory
groups are often able
to review study plans
with political
sensitivity.
If the community is large and the studies are likely to be very complex, then a
single workshop may not be sufficient to get the kind of interaction you need.
In this case, consider using a citizen advisory group, a technical task force, or
both. Citizen advisory groups are often able to review study plans with
political sensitivity. Members of citizen advisory groups may not be
sophisticated technically and may not be able to comment on the details of the
study plan, but they are often able to tell you those issues about which the
public will be concerned and give you a "credibility reading" based on their
reaction to your plan.
An alternative approach is to set up a technical task force to develop a study
plan. Or some communities set up a technical advisory committee in addition
to a citizen advisory committee, with the technical committee also lasting the
life of the siting process. This task force or technical advisory group would
include technical experts from agencies representing such different
considerations as land use, fish and wildlife protection, public health, or air
and water quality. Involving technical experts from agencies and groups other
than the proponent of the solid waste facility is the key.
Normally, the citizens' advisory group and the technical advisory group will
interact with each other. For example, the citizens' group might take the first
cut at the plan to identify key political issues. The technical group might then
work on the plan in detail, addressing the political concerns of the citizens'
group, among other issues. Members of the technical group would report to
the citizens' group on how they have addressed the concerns that were raised.
Step 3: Validate Methodological Assumptions
When people question studies, their questions are usually based on challenges
to the fundamental assumptions used in the studies. For example, a study that
assumes each family will continue to generate as much solid waste in the
future as it does today will surely be challenged by people who believe that at
least a part of the solution to solid waste is reducing the amount of waste being
generated in the first place. At a minimum, they will argue (with considerable
justification) that projections of future waste generation should consider
several different levels of generation, not just the present pattern.
Reduce the number of challenges to assumptions by some form of review.
A citizen advisory group may be of some assistance in identifying hidden
assumptions, although sometimes such assumptions are buried in study
-------
80
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
methodologies that only a technical expert can understand. As a result, a
technical task force or advisory group may be most helpful in subjecting
assumptions to critique before you do the studies, not afterward.
Step 4: Invite Public Involvement In Consultant Selection
Once members of the public begin to question whether municipal employees
are simply advocates for a project, they will also begin to question the
objectivity of your consultants. This happens all the time with developers.
Because a technical expert testifies on behalf of a developer, the public often
assumes that the expert has "sold out" to the developer. This is offensive to
consultants, most of whom work hard at maintaining their objectivity. But
once again, mistrust seems to be a political reality.
Consultants are often selected by a panel of city staff members that reviews
proposals and interviews prospective consultants. One way to address the
accusation that you selected your consultants because they reflected your
predispositions is to include representatives of key interests on the selection
panel. Getting leaders of interest groups to spend the time to participate in
such a process may be difficult. But they may recommend technical experts
from other agencies whose judgment they would be willing to accept.
Step 5: Provide Technical Assistance to the Public
Sometimes the only way to get credibility is to provide city funding to bring in
outside consultants who will review studies on behalf of citizen groups. There
are some pitfalls to this process. Sometimes citizen groups proposing this
consultant may have a consultant in mind whose predisposition they already
know, and may simply want the city to come up with the money to pay this
consultant to come up with the conclusion they want. Or someone at a local
college may have impressive educational credentials but not be truly qualified
to review the technical adequacy of the work.
One approach is for the city staff, or better yet, a technical advisory group, to
develop a list of consultants considered both fully qualified and objective,
then permit a body such as the citizen advisory group to select consultants
from that list. If you can find an acceptable mechanism for providing
qualified consultant assistance to citizens and groups, you can begin to build
both credibility and a more knowledgeable public.
-------
BUILDING CREDIBILITY FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Presenting technical
information in
accessible language
can Increase its
credibility.
Over time, of course, ideally you want to develop sufficient expertise within
the city staff so that you are not totally reliant on outside consultants. Even
then, though, if the city is seen as a proponent of the solid waste facility,
opponents will challenge the credibility of studies prepared by city staff.
Step 6: Use an Outside Body to Review Technical Studies
Earlier, we suggested including citizens or technical advisory groups in
developing the study plan. These groups could also help review technical
studies as they are being conducted.
Occasionally, though, the quality of technical studies must be verified by an
outside body of technical experts who have no stake in the outcome. On
issues of national importance, for example, the National Academy of Science
will set up technical boards to review studies, recommending changes in the
study or verifying the adequacy of the study. Although many issues at a local
level will not justify such expensive and high-level review, it may be possible
to get the same kind of results by setting up a review panel with people from
local universities or other agencies.
One problem with using an outside group, of course, is that if the group
concludes that your studies are not adequate, you will probably have to accept
that judgment and redo your studies accordingly. You cannot have the
benefits of an "objective" review without the possibility that the review group
may find some deficiencies. •
* • -
Step 7: Present Technical Information in Understandable Language
Presenting technical information with a lot of j argon and technical
gobbledygook can fuel people's suspicions that the technical studies are trying
to "put one over" on the public or to hide important information in all the
jargon. Taking the time and effort to present technical information in simple,
everyday, understandable language can increase the number of people who
will pay attention to the information and increase the credibility of the
information. One of the potential uses of advisory groups is to pretest
proposed newsletters, reports, or other publications, both to be sure that they
do not have any hidden bias and that they are understandable.
-------
82
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
The Limitations of Actions to Build Credibility
Although these steps can help protect the credibility of technical information,
they will not remove all challenges. People who oppose a project try to raise
issues that will gain support for their position. By taking steps to protect
technical credibility, however, you reduce the chances of opponents gaining
political support by questioning the technical adequacy of studies. But the
questions will still be asked. Also, if they come under intense political
pressure, people who approved study plans earlier may later raise questions
about the adequacy of the studies.
Virtually all the techniques mentioned above involve consultation with the
leadership of groups or technical experts from other agencies or groups. This
means that these techniques reach only a limited public, and you anticipate
they play a surrogate function on behalf of the larger public. Anytime you
deal with such a limited public, be sure that even if you are talking only to a
"leadership" group you are at least talking to the full spectrum of opinions.
Do not leave out any key interests—they will just come back to haunt you
later.
-------
MITIGATING NEGATIVE IMPACTS 83
CHAPTER 9
MITIGATING NEGATIVE IMPACTS
Highlights:
• If the public perceives that a project poses a genuine risk to health or safety, then
everything else is non-negotiable.
• Any change in the level of risk will be seen as a negative impact because the public
assumes the present level of risk to be zero.
• Common mitigation issues include decision making and control, air pollution, odor,
ground water, image/property values, traffic safety/congestion, noise, dust,
access/safety, visual impact, wetlands protection, and waste flow reduction.
• The best response to questions about the need for additional landfill capacity is to have
an effective waste reduction and recycling program in place in the community before
beginning the siting process.
• Not all negative impacts can be avoided, and in some cases compensation is a
justifiable option.
General Principles of Mitigation
Some public policy issues in local communities, no matter how sensitive to the
concerns of residents, are bound to have negative consequences for a few
people. Whether they are transmission lines, or street improvements, or solid
waste facilities, certain projects always adversely affect a few people. In the
past, people usually tolerated the impacts without too much controversy. But
times have changed.
Few projects today are built without some level of public controversy. In
political terms, this makes sense. After all, those people who receive negative
impacts may be affected a lot, while the benefits for each individual may be
-------
84
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
relatively small. Obviously, the people who do not want the project (at least
not in their backyards) are more likely to be active and more likely to have a
political impact.
In the present political climate, if a solid waste facility is to be successfully
sited, it is necessary to find more immediate and direct means of mitigating
the negative impacts. In fact, just as you need to plan for public involvement
and risk communication, you need to anticipate and plan to mitigate the
negative impacts of a project. The era of making a few reluctant concessions
is over. Planning for mitigation is a reality.
Here are a few general principles to follow in thinking about mitigation.
The Affected People Want Equivalent Benefits
The people who experience negative impacts expect the attention of local
government and may demand an equivalent share of the benefits from the
project to offset the damage. It is possible to make tradeoffs between impacts
and benefits, such as making sure that neighborhoods that accept undesirable
facilities also receive improvements such as recreation buildings or school
improvements.
Mitigation activities are more effective when tied directly to the problem. For
example, road improvements and fire equipment might reduce transportation
risks and are likely to gain more support than an equivalent amount of cash. A
group that bears the brunt of the negative impacts might demand greater
supervision over the operation and management of the facility.
Do Not Try to "Pay" for Health or Safety Impacts
Compensatory benefits work for some negative impacts, but the same logic
does not apply to health and safety issues. If citizens are afraid that
incinerators from a waste-to-energy facility will emit hazardous compounds
into the air, or pose serious health or safety risks, they cannot be compensated
with other benefits.
Unless people are
convinced that a
facility Is safe, any
offers of compensation
will be seen as a
morally unacceptable
bribe.
People view health and safety in terms of "safe/unsafe." If they perceive a
facility is safe, then it is possible to talk about other issues. If they perceive a
project poses a genuine risk to health or safety, then everything else is non-
negotiable. In other words, with health and safety issues, there are thresholds
below which the public will not go, no matter what other benefits may be
-------
MITIGATING NEGATIVE IMPACTS
derived from the project, if they perceive a significant risk. Furthermore, any
local politician who gets in the position of accepting community benefits in
return for accepting health and safety risks is likely to be viewed as selling out
the public's health and safety. Unless people are convinced a facility is safe,
any offers of compensation will be seen as a morally unacceptable bribe.
It is also true that different neighborhoods and communities perceive risk
differently, and what may be seen as a non-negotiable health and safety issue
in one neighborhood will be seen as an acceptable trade-off in another.
Community risk perceptions depend to some extent on how sensitized the
community is to risk issues—the community might have suffered negative
consequences from toxics or other pollution issues previously. Or, risk
perceptions may depend on the general socioeconomic conditions in the
community.
The Present Level of Risk Is Assumed to Be Zero
Any change in risk will be perceived as a negative impact, because the people
assume the present situation is without risk, or at least that risk has already
been taken into account. A modern solid waste facility may pose fewer risks
than the existing situation, but the emotional reality is otherwise.
Emotionally, the risks associated with the existing situation have already been
incurred, so they count as zero. If you wish to change this perception, then
people must be told about both the risks involved in the existing situation and
the risks of the proposed site.
There can be a down side to providing full information, however, as local
officials may then be accused of having exposed the public to unacceptable
risks, without public knowledge. Nevertheless, a full factual discussion may
be the best approach.
Many Mitigation Issues Are Issues About Procedure
Many concerns about mitigation have to do with procedure or process.
• Who makes the decisions?
• What opportunities does the public have to influence decisions?
• Who decides whether to close the facility if something hazardous happens?
• How much access to information is provided?
-------
86 SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
These issues matter because they address the key questions of credibility,
trust, and control. When people are not sure of the impacts of a project, they
get very concerned with the decision-making process.
Common Mitigation Issues for Solid Waste Facilities
Here are some concerns about solid waste facilities that may require some
form of mitigation.
Process Issues
To address the many questions of credibility and trust, affected citizens often
demand that they be represented in the decision-making process and have
some control over safety issues. Neighbors or prospective neighbors of the
facility most frequently demand the following:
• Immediate access to facility management, so they can express concerns,
and be confident that the people who are really in charge will address their
concerns;
• Representation on the governing board of the facility (If the governing
board is a city council, which makes decisions on many issues beside the
facility, they may demand that a special board be set up to oversee
operation of the facility.);
• Local power to shut down the facility if there are any problems such as
air emissions above air quality standards, or leaks to ground water (These
demands are more likely to be made if the facility is managed by a regional,
state, or federal agency. The public's concern is that the person who makes
such a decision be more responsive to local concerns—"after all, we're the
people at risk"—than to regional economic concerns.);
• Funds for an independent review of technical studies, a request
resulting from the public's view that studies conducted by the proponent for
the study are not neutral and represent advocacy for the project; and
• Funds for a monitoring system, so that claims made by the project
proponent can be verified and action taken if the claims were not accurate.
These demands have been met effectively in cases around the country. For
example, some facility managers have established a hotline that rings into the
facility manager's office for community questions or concerns. Others have
regular meetings with people in the neighborhood, to be sure that concerns are
addressed early, before they grow into controversy. Such meetings are
particularly important whenever change in facility operations is planned, for
-------
MITIGATING NEGATIVE IMPACTS 87
example, new construction, or operating in new areas on the site. Occasionally
this "community liaison" function is passed on to someone like a public
information officer, but experience suggests that a key manager of the facility
working directly with the public lends greater credibility to the process.
If the facility has a governing board, it may be possible to provide at least a
few seats to neighbors. More often the developer establishes a neighborhood
advisory board that either works directly with the facility manager or, if there
is a governing board, makes recommendations to the governing board.
If the developer of the facility is not part of the local government, normally the
developer provides funds for the community to retain adequate consultant
assistance for reviewing the developer's proposal and supporting
documentation. When local government is the developer, then the issue is
more likely to come up if the situation has become polarized and the local
government's credibility is at stake.
In some cases, providing funds for technical review may be necessary if the
issue is to be resolved. It is more appropriate, however, for local governments
to take preventative action such as setting up a citizen or technical advisory
group to oversee studies from the beginning. If the developer has provided
complete visibility to the studies from the beginning and neighbors have
participated in reviewing the study, it is less likely that the community will
demand an outside review.
Air and water quality monitoring, wherever these could be issues, are often
required by federal and state law and are increasingly becoming a normal part
of post-permit operation. Costs for a monitoring system should be included
when estimating the capital costs of the project. Monitoring procedures and
procedures for releasing the results can be reviewed with a citizen or technical
advisory committee.
Air Pollution
Although waste-to-energy facilities are attractive in many ways, concerns
about health hazards from air emissions from incinerators are frequently raised
in controversies over solid waste facility sitings. Opponents of projects often
successfully place the burden on the project proponent to prove there are no
risks. Many issues raised about health effects of emissions require resolution
of scientific questions. No local government can hope to resolve these
questions, because the scientific research is not yet adequate on some issues or
-------
88
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
Fears about risk are
magnified when the
proponent Is not
credible.
science is simply unable to prove zero risk. Again, the public often assumes
that there is zero risk if the project is not built, and this assumption needs to be
addressed in public information materials.
The preventative approach is most effective. Dramatic appeals about the risks
associated with air quality are more effective when the public has not had
adequate opportunity to review study plans, assess the adequacy of technical
reports, or fully consider facility design and operation. Fears about risk are
magnified in an environment in which the proponent is not credible. But if the
project proponent demonstrates sensitivity to local concerns by the manner in
which the siting process is being conducted, and by the use of appropriate
pollution control equipment and screening of materials at the facility, the
potential for arousing alarm is reduced (although not necessarily eliminated).
Full compliance with all federal and state regulatory controls and explanations
of these controls to the concerned public will also help establish credibility.
Odor/Litter
Most citizens imagine "the dump" as a place where odor is a genuine issue for
local neighbors. In fact, some existing facilities may still have odor problems.
To convince people that modern new facilities have few odor problems,
proponents have to overcome this image.
One technique that has been used to convince people that modern new
facilities have few odor problems is to take a selected group, such as local
decision makers or neighborhood representatives, to a modern solid waste
facility. Arrangements can even be made to let neighbors of a proposed
facility talk with neighbors of an existing facility; people are more likely to
believe others in the actual situation than "official" statements.
Litter is also a major concern for neighbors of a proposed facility who may
worry about winds scattering unmanaged plastics and paper. The litter
problem, like the odor problem, can be resolved through visits to more modern
facilities and facilities with improved management practices.
Ground Water
The public has become increasingly aware of situations in which hazardous
wastes from solid waste facilities have leaked into the ground-water table. An
analysis of case studies shows that this is becoming a highly significant issue,
particularly in any community that has experienced any other ground-water
problems. In some cases, the whole reason a new facility has to be sited is
-------
MITIGATING NEGATIVE IMPACTS
89
A stigma may develop
about neighborhoods
near a solid waste
facility.
because of ground-water contamination at the old site, so the public has every
reason to ask why the new facility is going to be different.
Because this issue must be seriously addressed in planning for any solid waste
disposal facility, the best solution is to include neighbors, or at least people the
neighbors trust, in the development of all plans to protect against ground-
water contamination problems. But process alone will not solve the problem.
There must be adequate geological studies. The public must be educated on
modern landfill design (possibly by field trips to modern facilities). Federal
and state regulations must be explained to the public and fully complied with.
Monitoring programs must be established to ensure safety.
Negative Neighborhood Image/Property Values
In the past, solid waste facilities were usually put in less desirable
neighborhoods. It is not always clear whether the neighborhoods were less
desirable because of the facility, or whether the facility was put there because
the neighborhood was already less desirable. In either case, a stigma may
have developed about neighborhoods near a solid waste facility. Homeowners
are concerned that any new facility could affect the image of the neighborhood
and property values.
The mitigation measures for this concern might include funding a study of
how the siting of a modern solid waste facility has affected property values in
other areas. One mitigation measure that has been used in siting hazardous or
low-level nuclear waste sites is for the proponent to guarantee the property
values of homes in a defined area or to guarantee the purchase of the home.
Naturally the agreement has to include provisions to ensure that the decline in
property values is unique to a specific neighborhood, rather than caused by
general economic conditions in the community. Several communities have
discussed this possibility as part of their solid waste siting processes.
Traffic Safety/Congestion
Citizens often express concerns about trucks moving through a neighborhood.
Often these concerns are expressed as concerns about children's safety.
Sometimes the concern is congestion from added traffic on already busy
streets.
Typical mitigation measures to address these concerns include working with
neighborhood representatives or conducting public meetings to review
-------
90
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
proposed traffic routes that reduce safety problems or congestion. Other
communities have increased their use of volunteer guards at street corners
near schools to ensure safe crossing. Hours when trucks leave and return to
the facility may also be adjusted to reflect community concerns.
Noise
There may also be concerns about noise, either from street traffic or from the
operation of the facility. Addressing these concerns may require working with
the public to identify alternative routes or may require adjusting the facility's
hours of operation. Steps may also be taken to muffle the sound or install
soundproofing equipment. These are the kinds of issues that can be
effectively addressed with a neighborhood advisory group. Reducing noise
problems should be addressed in the design of the facility, because the
cheapest solutions are those incorporated while building the facility.
Some of the noise concerns of neighbors may be primarily about the
construction period, which may last for a number of months. Because the
actual construction is often carried out by a private contractor under contract
to the local government or a developer, it is essential that contractors know
before submitting their bids that they will have to comply with certain
requirements to reduce noise. If requirements of this sort are imposed after a
contract is already signed, contractors will avoid compliance because of the
added cost.
Dust
Dust can be generated both during construction and operation of the facility.
Steps to reduce dust should be discussed and agreed on with an advisory
group or in public meetings. Steps to reduce dust during construction should
be identified prior to advertising for bids, so that contractors incorporate these
steps into their bids. During facility operation, compliance with agreements
for dust reduction can be handled by installing a hotline to the facility
manager, so that neighbors can call in with any complaints, and by holding
regular meetings between the facility manager and neighbors.
Access/Safety
Neighbors are often concerned that their children may try to enter facility
property (e.g., by climbing over fences) during non-operation hours and get
into unsafe situations. These are the kinds of issues that can be effectively
-------
MITIGATING NEGATIVE IMPACTS
negotiated with an advisory group or neighborhood representatives, although
more steps may be required to prevent access than were originally anticipated.
Visual Impact
People often have difficulty accepting assurances that modern solid waste
facilities do not look like the old "dump." Again, a field trip to an existing
modern facility may be helpful. Also, the architect/designer can work with
neighbors to discuss alternative ways of reducing visual impact on the
neighborhood.
Wetlands Protection
In the past, solid waste facilities were rather frequently located in what were
called "swampy areas," but are now called wetlands. Because of the increased
recognition of the importance of wetlands in providing wildlife habitat, state
and/or federal permits are generally required to site a facility in a wetlands
area. You also can anticipate concerns about protection of wildlife habitat if a
facility is constructed on an existing site that was built on wetlands, or adjoins
wetlands. The neighbors may not be the people who raise concerns about
wildlife protection. Rather, you may need to satisfy state and federal agencies
and interest groups that are active in wildlife protection and environmental
issues.
It is best to have an
effective waste
reduction and
recycling program
already in place in the
community.
Waste Flow Reduction
Local environmental groups will sometimes team up with neighbors to block
solid waste facilities in an effort to force the community to adopt programs to
reduce the amount of waste generated. They will argue that before building a
new facility, you should first take steps to reduce the waste flow. This is
consistent with EPA policy.
Source reduction and effective recycling programs can reduce the need for
facilities and can scale down the capacity requirements of those facilities that
are still needed. But communities may not be able to solve their solid waste
problems without additional waste management capacity. The best response
to questions about the need for additional capacity is to have an effective
waste reduction and recycling program in place in the community before
beginning the siting process. Or it may be possible to develop such a program
as part of the siting process. This is a key issue during the planning stage of
the siting process.
-------
92
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
Planning for Mitigation
As the comments above suggest, responding to neighbors' concerns and
getting agreements on effective steps to mitigate impacts requires active
public involvement. Public involvement is not just about finding a suitable
site, but also about the steps that will be taken to mitigate neighbors' concerns.
Not all negative impacts can be avoided. If there is a negative impact on a
neighborhood, compensation may be appropriate. Compensation does not
have to be direct payment to individual neighbors, but may include funding of
other programs or facilities important to that neighborhood. Remember,
though, that if the primary concern of neighbors is health or safety risks, offers
of any form of compensation may be viewed as a bribe. For other issues, such
compensation may be viewed as fair, depending on the type impact on the
neighborhood.
Developing an effective program to mitigate negative impacts on the
community requires careful planning. By carefully planning to address
mitigation concerns, you may be able to reduce the amount of public
controversy significantly, increasing the chances of a successful siting. This
planning must include both the actual steps that can be taken and the process
for working with affected segments of the public to get agreement on
mitigation issues.
Tha Bablc Steps In
Planning for Mitigation
1. Idantify the decision-
making process for
mitigation Issues.
2. Identify the mitigation
issues likely to arise.
3. Identify concerned
segments of the
public for each issue.
4. Identify forums for
resolving mitigation
Issues with affected
people.
5. Integrate mitigation
activities into the
public involvement
plan.
Step 1: Identify the Decision-Making Process for Mitigation Issues
Working with the public to resolve mitigation issues is a negotiation process.
This process must be established before the issues arise. It is not wise to put
off final decisions on mitigation issues until they are included as conditions in
a final permit, because unaddressed concern over these issues can turn into
adamant opposition. It is more effective to resolve these issues with the
public earlier in the siting process. Local policy boards, such as city councils
and county commissioners, should work with staff to identify where the staff
should negotiate on mitigation issues, and also to establish mechanisms for
getting periodic decisions by the policy board, rather than waiting until the
end of the process.
Step 2: Identify the Mitigation Issues Likely to Arise
Just as with public involvement, you should anticipate issues, not just wait
until they emerge and then react. The list of mitigation issues above can serve
-------
MITIGATING NEGATIVE IMPACTS 93
as an initial checklist, and your own experience in your community will
suggest other issues. Also, questions about potential mitigation issues can be
covered in any interviews conducted as part of the public involvement
program.
Step 3: Identify Concerned Segments of the Public for Each Issue
Mitigation issues tend to be raised by small segments of the public who are
directly affected by the issues. Issues of noise, dust, and traffic, for example,
are likely to be issues for the immediate neighborhood. Issues regarding
wetlands protection involve a different segment of the public, issues about
health and safety still another. Before you can select appropriate forums for
resolving issues, you need to know who the public is and with whom the issue
must be resolved.
Step 4: Identify Forums for Resolving Mitigation Issues with Affected
People
The next step in the process is to identify the mechanisms you will use—
whether neighborhood advisory groups, public meetings, or technical review
groups—to reach the affected people.
Step 5: Integrate Mitigation Activities into the Public Involvement Plan
Many forums for resolving mitigation issues are the same as those in the
public involvement program, so the final step is to integrate the two programs.
Be sure to piggyback on any public involvement activities to address
mitigation concerns, perhaps adding public involvement activities specifically
to address mitigation issues.
-------
-------
EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SITING STRATEGY 95
CHAPTER 10
EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SITING STRATEGY
Highlights:
• Evaluation is a useful management tool to determine whether the siting strategy is
achieving its goals and objectives.
• Evaluation can help to remove barriers to successful communication while facilitating
the smooth flow of useful information to all participants.
• Evaluation can be integrated with other aspects of the siting effort with even minimal
resources.
• Keep in mind that evaluation results can be used to preempt costly mistakes and to
modify and improve existing programs.
Thinking About Evaluation
Project leaders make important decisions throughout the siting process based
on their judgment of the effectiveness of specific siting activities. Although
there is no substitute for good judgment, evaluation can be a useful
management tool to provide timely, cost-effective information that will
improve the effectiveness of major siting activities.
By evaluating the effectiveness of your siting strategy, you are trying to learn
which activities are working, which activities need improvement, and which
siting issues have not been addressed. For example, do people still confuse
solid waste with hazardous waste? Do people know how to participate in the
siting process? Do people understand the dimensions of the solid waste
problem? Are people familiar with ground-water monitoring systems and
leachate collection systems? These questions flow naturally from the stated
goals or objectives of public involvement and risk communication activities,
and the answers to these questions will reflect the success or failure of your
siting strategy. •
-------
96
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
As noted in earlier chapters, people need information to make decisions at
various points in the siting process. If people are getting the wrong message
or if they need information that is unavailable, then something in the strategy
needs to be fixed. The problem may be caused by the information materials,
the channels for distributing information to the public, or the credibility of the
decision-making process itself. Evaluation, therefore, can help to remove
barriers to successful communication while facilitating the smooth flow of
useful information to all participants.
Evaluation is not an easy task. Many of the effects of the siting strategy will
be difficult to measure; the strategy may succeed on one objective while
failing on another. For example, the public might be satisfied that the siting
process is fair, but still disagree with the proposed solution. Or individual
siting activities might be difficult to separate from the cumulative effects of
the siting process. Evaluation may not be able to provide you with all of the
answers, but it can provide important feedback.
Developing an Evaluation Strategy
Integrating the
evaluation strategy
with other aspects of
the project minimizes
cost.
Evaluation strategies can take very different forms, depending on the type of
information collected, the scope of the issues addressed, and the measurement
techniques used. Constraints on time, expertise, and financial resources often
make project leaders reluctant to spend scarce resources on evaluation
activities. For example, sending a questionnaire to every household in the
county might be too expensive and time-consuming. Integrating the
evaluation strategy with other aspects of the project minimizes cost.
It is also important to think about the places in the siting process where
evaluation can be most cost-effective. Changes in siting activities usually can
be introduced at relatively low cost before full implementation. For example,
pretests and focus groups may identify less costly ways of presenting or
delivering the risk communication program than was originally planned.
Also, people often form opinions at the beginning of the siting process, so it
makes sense to pay careful attention to early siting activities.
Evaluations have different objectives; thus, several different evaluation
designs are available. For example, formative evaluation for risk
communication tries to identify the strengths and weaknesses of risk
messages, materials, or program strategies before full production, distribution,
or implementation. Process evaluation examines the administrative and
organizational aspects of the public involvement and risk communication
-------
EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SITING STRATEGY
activities. Outcome and impact evaluations identify both the immediate and
longer term effects of the communication activity on the intended audience.
Each of these evaluation designs serves a different purpose, and several
references in the bibliography can be used to clarify your evaluation design.
Although evaluations will differ, the five steps described below will help you
develop a solid foundation for improving your siting strategy.
Stepf: Set Goals and Objectives
During the planning phase of the siting process, you should have set your
goals and objectives for public involvement and risk communication.
Thinking about evaluation during the planning phase will force you to clarify
your goals and objectives for each activity.
You cannot evaluate
an activity if
necessary
information is not
identifiable or
collectable.
Step 2: Determine Information Needs for Evaluation
Determining what information you need to collect for the evaluation need not
be an additional step; it should be an integral part of planning for the siting
process. For example, if you want to increase community awareness of the
basic characteristics of the solid waste crisis, you should think about what
information you would need to measure "community awareness." In this case,
you might want to know the community's extent of knowledge about
components of the waste stream, rising costs, or declining disposal capacity
before and after distributing the materials. You cannot evaluate an activity if
necessary information is not identifiable or collectable.
Step 3: Collect the Information
Once you have determined the information requirements for the evaluation,
you need to choose data collection techniques. Questionnaires, focus groups,
key informant interviews, and telephone surveys are only some of the
collection techniques available to evaluators. No one evaluation strategy is
appropriate for everyone—be sure to design one that fits your particular needs.
In many cases, scarce resources will limit the extensive use of sophisticated
survey instruments. It is possible, however, to gain valuable feedback from
less formal evaluation tools. Kline, Chess, and Sandman's (1989) collection
of "quick and easy" methods for collecting data can be iiseful for improving
the content, production, and distribution of public education materials
(formative evaluation). These methods can also be used to find out whether
-------
98
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
the targeted audience received the message and, if so, whether the materials
were effective (outcome evaluation). If the "quick and easy" methods are
used correctly, they may even provide information that can be useful for later
impact evaluations.
Figure 10-1 outlines a variety of options for data collection, depending on
available resources.
Evaluation Options Based on Available Resources
TYPE OF
EVALU-
ATION
Formative
Process
Outcome
Impact
PROGRAM LEVEL
Minimal Modest Substantial
Resources Resources Resources
Readability test
Record-keeping
(e.g., monitoring
activity timetables)
Activity assessments
(e.g., numbers of
health screenings and
outcomes, or program
attendance and
audience response)
Print media review
(e.g., monitoring of
content of articles
appearing in the
media)
Central-location
intercept interview
Program checklist
(e.g., review of
adherence to program
plans)
Progress in attaining
objectives
(e.g., periodic
calculation of
percentage of target
audience aware,
referred, participating)
Public surveys
(e.g., telephone
surveys of self-
reported knowledge or
behavior)
Focus groups,
individual in-depth
interviews
Management audit
(e.g., external
management review of
activities)
Assessment of target
Audience for
knowledge gain (e.g.,
pretest and posttest of
change in audience
knowledge)
Studies of public
behavior/health
change (e.g., data on
physician visits, or
changes in public's
health status)
Source: Arkin, p. 20.
Figure 10-1
Your data collection strategy can also use public involvement techniques, such
as an advisory committee or a newsletter, to reduce cost and provide specific
feedback on participation activities. Try passing out evaluation forms at
public meetings to get criticism on the presentation of materials or other
weaknesses in the siting process. Or publish newsletters that contain a tear-off
coupon to encourage audience feedback.
-------
EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SITING STRATEGY
If a particular activity
is not effective,
evaluation can help
identify the cause and
thereby improve
planning future
efforts.
Step 4: Analyzing the Data
After collecting data, look at how well the information relates to the public
involvement and risk communication objectives to evaluate whether they are
working. At a minimum, the "quick and easy" evaluation techniques should
provide results that are relatively easy to analyze. In more extensive
evaluations you can use statistical techniques to measure causal relationships
between siting activities and community responses. It is important to make
sure that these statistical techniques are applied appropriately to give reliable
data. Local libraries carry many resources on how to use statistical
techniques.
Step 5: Drawing Conclusions
The results of the evaluation probably will highlight some successes as well as
some failures. Siting solid waste facilities is a difficult and complex process,
and even experienced practitioners face unpredictable obstacles requiring new
skills and strategies. Keep in mind that evaluation results can be used to
preempt costly mistakes and to modify and improve existing programs. If a
particular activity is not effective, evaluation can help identify the cause and
thereby improve future efforts.
-------
-------
SUMMING IT ALLUP 101
CHAPTER 11
SUMMING IT ALL UP
The trash problem in the United States has no easy answers, and the conflict
surrounding the siting of solid waste facilities will be with us for many years.
Just as the issues and challenges facing public officials and citizens have
changed over the last two decades, we should also expect new issues and new
challenges to emerge in the coming years.
This guidebook has tried to present a strategy for effectively resolving
conflicts that might appear during the siting process. No recipe exists that will
guarantee a successful siting process; public officials from different
communities must tailor the siting strategy to their own particular needs and
issues.
The following guidelines summarize the most important points made in the
guidebook.
• Accept the public as a legitimate partner.
• Listen to the concerns of the different interests and groups in the
community.
• Plan a siting process that permits full consideration of policy alternatives.
• Set goals and objectives for public involvement and risk communication
activities in each step of the siting process.
• Create mechanisms for involving the public early in the decision-making
process.
• Provide risk information that the public needs to make informed decisions.
• Be prepared to mitigate negative impacts on the community.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of public involvement and risk communication
activities.
-------
102
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
Although these eight guidelines for public involvement, risk communication,
mitigation, and evaluation are not comprehensive, each plays a key role in
designing an effective siting process. The guidelines are specific enough to
lend structure to a multitude of planning activities—but they do not substitute
for the good judgement of project leaders and other interested parties.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
103
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arkin, Elaine Bratic. Evaluation for Risk Communication. Prepared for the
Workshop on Evaluation and Effective Risk Communication,
Washington, DC. The Institute for Health Policy Analysis, Georgetown
University Medical Center, 1988.
Covello, Vincent T., David B. McCallum, and Maria T. Pavlova. Effective
Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Governmental and
Non-governmental Agencies. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.
Covello, Vincent T., Peter M. Sandman, and Paul Slovic. Risk
Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk Comparisons: A Manual for
Plant Managers. Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers Association,
Washington, DC, 1988. (Also found in Covello, et al., 1989).
Hance, Billy Jo, Caron Chess, and Peter M. Sandman. Improving Dialogue
with Communities: A Risk Communication Manual for Government.
Report prepared for the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 1987. (Also found
in Covello, et al., 1989).
Desvousges, William H., and V. Kerry Smith. "Focus Groups and Risk
Communication: The 'Science' of Listening to Data." Risk Analysis
8(4), 1988.
Dillman, Don A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.
Energy Systems Research Group, Inc., et al. Managing Municipal Solid
Waste: A Comparative Risk Analysis of Landfill and Resource Recovery
Facilities. Report to the Northeast Regional Biomass Program of the
CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc., Boston, MA, 1988.
Environmental Protection Agency. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for
Action. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste, 1989.
Fitz-Gibbon, Carol Taylor, and Lynn Lyons Morris. How to Analyze Data.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 1989.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988). Final Report, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, 1988.
-------
104
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
Herman, John L., Lynn Lyons Morris, and Carol Taylor Fitz-Gibbon.
Evaluation Handbook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.,
1989.
Kline, Mark, Caron Chess, and Peter M. Sandman. Evaluating Risk
Communication Programs: A Catalogue of "Quick and Easy" Feedback
Methods. Report to the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection.. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 1989.
Krimsky, Sheldon, and Alonzo Plough. Environmental Hazards:
Communicating Risks as a Social Process. Dover, MA: Auburn House
Publishing Company, 1988.
Kreuger, Richard A. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1988.
National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
Smith, V. Kerry, William H. Desvousges, Ann Fisher, and F.R. Johnson.
Communicating Radon Risk Effectively: A Mid-Course Evaluation.
Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, 1987.
Smith, V. Kerry, and William H. Desvousges. "The Value of Avoiding a
LULU: Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites." Review of Economics and
Statistics 68(2):293-299, 1986.
-------
APPENDIX: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN
105
APPENDIX
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN
Background
This is a sample public involvement plan for the siting of a solid waste landfill
for the mythical city of Pinetree Grove and unincorporated areas surrounding
the town.
In 1988, the State of Forestland Department of Health Services ordered
Pinetree Grove to close its existing landfill because seepage from the landfill
was causing ground-water contamination. Pinetree Grove has executed a three
year contract with its adjoining neighbor, Jamesville, to dispose of wastes in a
landfill owned and operated by Jamesville. Jamesville has already announced
that it will not extend the contract unless, by the time the three years is up, a
new facility is under construction in Pinetree Grove. Any extension would
only cover the period until construction of the new facility is completed.
The Pinetree Grove Department of Public Works (DPW) is the lead agency for
the city in the siting project. Preliminary technical data from the DPW staff
indicate that a landfill is the preferred waste management technology. Site
selection must be approved by the city council and will be reviewed by the
Jefferson County Solid Waste Division and the Forestland State Department
of Health Services.
Preliminary Consultation
A Public Involvement Planning Group has been established. The group
consists of staff from the Pinetree Grove Department of Public Works and
Planning Department; Jefferson County Solid Waste, Planning, and
Environmental Compliance Divisions; the State of Forestland Department of
Health Services; and representatives from the engineering and environmental
consultants. This group will be responsible for planning and conducting the
public involvement program.
During the preparation of this plan the members of this team consulted witfi
individual members of the city council, the League of Women Voters,
-------
106
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
Neighborhoods Against Garbage, and the presidents of three neighborhood
homeowners' associations.
Major Issues
The major issues identified during the prior consultation interviews were as
follows.
1. The City's Credibility—Because the City claimed for years that the
old facility was safe, the City's credibility as a source of reliable
technical information has been badly damaged.
2. Health Risk/Ground-Water Contamination—Because the old
facility was found to be contaminating the ground water with
hazardous chemicals, neighbors of any landfill will be extremely
concerned about both health risks and ground-water contamination
resulting from the new landfill.
3. Land Use Compatibility—All neighborhoods will be concerned
whether a landfill is compatible with either present or future land uses.
4. Stigma—Many citizens view landfills as innately undesirable,
threatening to property values and the image of their neighborhoods.
5. Traffic—Citizens will be concerned about noise, dust, and traffic
safety from movement of trucks through neighborhoods to the new
landfill. These concerns are often expressed as a concern for children
en route to or from school.
6. Reduction of Waste Stream—Several environmental groups may
oppose siting the landfill in an attempt to force greater efforts to reduce
the amount of waste generated in the community.
Level of Interest
With the past history of the old landfill and the potential for neighborhoods to
become organized in opposition to proposed sites, the level of citizen and
group interest is expected to be very high, justifying an extensive public
participation program.
Interested Groups
Several neighborhood groups, notably Neighbors Against Garbage, which
organized during the closure of the old landfill, are certain to be quite active.
Also, each neighborhood in which a potential site is to located is likely to
become organized while that site is being considered.
-------
APPENDIX: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 107
Developers and owners of large parcels of land will be both interested and
concerned. Future growth of Pinetree Grove depends on solving the solid
waste problem. The location of the landfill could also influence which areas
of the City are developed in the next future.
As noted above, environmentalist groups will be concerned with reducing the
waste stream and will also be concerned with ground-water contamination.
Environmentalists will also be concerned about selection of a site with the
fewest environmental impacts on the site.
Because of the potential level of controversy, city council members wish to be
keep fully informed of all activities, particularly within their electoral districts.
Decision-making Process
The basic stages in the siting process will be as follows:
1. Informing the public about the need for a landfill;
2. Identifying alternative sites;
3. Evaluating alternative sites; and
4. Site selection.
Public Participation Activities
Informing the Public About the Need for a Landfill
Because of the crisis brought about by the closure of the old landfill, the
objective of the first phase of the program will be to make the public fully
aware of the present siting emergency. A second objective is to gain
acceptance that the proposed study methodology and public involvement plan
are adequate. The public participation activities during this phase include the
following:
1. Prepare and distribute a newspaper insert describing why a new
landfill is needed. This insert should be signed by as many influential
community leaders as possible.
2. Work with newspapers on feature stories to describe the problem.
3. Prepare a slide show and establish a speakers' bureau to make
presentations to civic clubs, homeowners' association meetings, etc.
-------
108
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
4. Have city council, city managers, or other recognized leaders appear
on talk shows to discuss the problem.
5. Establish both a citizen advisory group and a technical advisory group
(with technical representatives from agencies).
6. Review the study methodology and public involvement plan with both
advisory groups.
7. Publish Newsletter #1 describing (a) project need, (b) the
establishment of the advisory groups, (c) the study methodology, and
(d) the public involvement plan.
Identifying Alternative Sites
This is a heavily technical stage, involving a number of studies to identify
potential sites. The two public participation objectives for this stage are
(a) ensure that the public is satisfied that all potential sites have been
considered, and (2) get agreement on the criteria to be used to evaluate sites.
The public participation activities during this stage include the following:
1. Conduct a series of public workshops during which the public will be
asked to: (a) propose alternative sites for consideration, and (b) review
the study methodology and public participation process.
2. Conduct a series of coffee meetings with homeowners' associations to
discuss proposed evaluation criteria.
3. Conduct a series of meetings with the advisory groups to get
agreement on evaluation criteria.
4. Publish Newsletter #2, describing evaluation criteria and process, and
announcing town meeting.
5. Hold a town meeting to receive final comment on the evaluation
criteria.
Evaluation of Alternative Sites
This stage involves screening out unacceptable sites and identifying final
alternatives. The primary public participation objectives are (1) ensure that
the public is satisfied that the alternatives screened out were screened out for
good reason, and (2) ensure that the public is fully informed about the
remaining alternatives. The public participation activities will include the
following:
-------
APPENDIX: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 109
1. Conduct a series of screening workshops with both advisory groups to
screen out clearly unacceptable alternatives.
2. Review screening decisions in a series of meetings with homeowners'
associations.
3. Publish Newspaper Insert #2 to describe the alternatives screened out
and the alternatives remaining and to announce public workshops.
4. Use paid advertisements to announce public workshops.
5. Conduct a series of public workshops to review remaining alternatives.
6. Publish Newsletter #3 describing public comment on remaining
alternatives.
Site Selection
During this phase, a preferred alternative will be identified and recommended
to the city council. The primary public participation objective is to develop as
high a level of consensus as possible on a preferred alternative. The public
participation activities will be as follows:
1. Conduct a final evaluation workshop with the technical advisory
group.
2. Conduct an evaluation workshop with the citizen advisory group.
3. Conduct a neighborhood workshop with each of the remaining
neighborhoods where there are alternative sites.
4. Hold a retreat with the citizen advisory group to develop
recommendation on preferred site.
5. Conduct briefings with elected officials to announce the advisory
group's recommendation.
6. Conduct meetings with neighborhood homeowners' associations to
explain the advisory group's recommendation.
7. Conduct a series of meetings with neighborhoods in which proposed
site is located to identify mitigation measures.
8. Publish Newsletter #4 to announce the advisory group's
recommendation and final public meeting.
-------
110
SITES FOR OUR SOLID WASTES
9. Conduct final public meeting to review the advisory group's
recommendation.
10. Publish Newsletter #5 to announce the site selection and describe the
review process to be used by city council.
11. City council will hold public hearings, as required by City regulations.
12. City council decision.
13. Publish newsletter #6 announcing the final city council decision.
* U.S. G.P.O.:1991-524-859-34690
------- |