Noxious facilities and host community response: a causal framework.

Research Problem and Goal

Responses of host community residents to proposed noxious facilities are influenced by many interacting factors. Specific facility characteristics, background beliefs and values, sociodemographic characteristics, and attitudes all affect the propensity of residents to actively oppose the siting of a proposed waste facility. A negative response may result in the rejection or delay of a socially desirable and technically feasible facility. Typical causal factors, their interactions, and their influence on host community attitudes and actions need to be determined and structured into a generic framework. That framework can serve as a tool for siting agencies to

1. identify and screen compatible host communities,

2. determine and modify sensitive facility characteristics and effects to accommodate host community characteristics and concerns, and

3. structure the siting process so that key issues can be negotiated openly.

Presented below is the theoretical analysis from which the causal framework is derived. The framework consists of generic factors and interactions that determine host community response to a proposed noxious facility. The specific factors and interactions have been tested in a case study of an incinerator designed to destroy outdated military explosives. The results of the test are presented and analyzed in relation to the framework. Finally, the framework is revisited, so that conclusions can be drawn and implications for impact mitigation and siting process management can be identified.

A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Host Community Response

The components of this framework are the causal factors and the cause-effect connections between preceding factors and dependent variables. The components are compiled from the pertinent theory and the results of past studies. Generic components and connections are defined first. Next, statements about specific components and relationships are developed to serve as hypotheses for a case study involving a nerve gas incinerator in eastern Oregon.

Several theoretical constructs have been applied to the problem of explaining host community responses to undesirable facilities, but, to date, attempts to compile and synthesize the components and connections into an integrated framework have been few (1). Johnson compiled important concerns and outlined the public's role in siting processes (2). More recently, Zeiss and Lefsrud matched the physical cause-and-effect connections with beliefs, attitudes, and actions toward the facility (3).

The framework proposed in this study was tested and adapted to reflect factors and their connections found in case studies of a landfill and a hazardous waste facility (3,4). These findings are summarized and updated with new findings to provide specific hypotheses for a modified framework [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED].

Beliefs About the Need for the Facility

Need is defined as the ability of a locally undesirable facility to address an existing deficiency - that is, to improve current conditions to an expected reference point (5). The need for the facility may be different for different stakeholders. For example, from the perspective of a regulator or a community, the need may be to improve environmental quality; from the perspective of the facility proponent or the community, the need may be to achieve a certain level of economic activity; or the need may be to meet a requirement mandated by the government. As the prime reason for undertaking the activity, need differs from coincidental benefits [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED] [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 3 OMITTED] such as new jobs, tax revenues, a new access road, and so forth.

The recognition of the need for an undesirable facility has been shown to be strongly linked to a more favorable attitude about the facility (4-7). Host community residents consider the validity and strength of the need, both of society in general and of the facility proponent, but they also give weight to the needs of their own community in their attitude about the facility Recognition of the need to improve the local environment has had a positive effect on attitude toward the siting of hazardous waste transfer stations and toward hazardous waste and municipal waste facilities (4,5). Therefore, a first hypothesis states that residents are more likely to believe that the net effect of the facility is positive if they believe that the facility is needed by the community and by the proponent of the facility Figure 1 illustrates Hypothesis I with an arrow that points from "beliefs about need" to "beliefs about net effects."

Beliefs About Site Choice and Facility Design

Host community residents integrate beliefs about the need for a facility, the adequacy of site choice, and the design of the facility into a set of beliefs about the net effect of the facility. When residents are convinced that the best possible site and the best possible design have been proposed (including the choice of technology, process, and emission controls and monitoring) and that the facility will not have significant negative impacts, the attitude toward the facility is more favorable (4,5,7,8). Therefore, a second hypothesis postulates that residents believe the net effect to be more positive if they hold that the need for the facility is strong and that the site choice and facility design are the best possible. Hypothesis 2 is indicated in Figure 1 by the arrow that points from "site selection and facility design" to "facility net effect."

Beliefs About Net Facility Effects and Environmental Risks in Relation to Background Environmental Beliefs

When the net effect of the facility on the host community is believed to be positive, a more positive attitude toward the facility results (6,9). Psychometric risk perception measures constitute sensitive beliefs; uncontrollable, involuntary, inequitable, increasing, catastrophic, and fatal consequences; and new, unobservable, delayed consequences unknown to science (10). Greater perceived risk results in more negative attitude (6,9,11). Beliefs that present regulations are adequate result in a more positive attitude and greater acceptance (12). Furthermore, general beliefs about technology, environmental concern, and risk management have been shown by Gould et al. and Dake and Wildavsky to correlate with attitudes about a specific technology (12,13). These general background beliefs were selected and included in the framework with a third hypothesis: The attitude of residents will be more favorable if they believe that the net effect is positive; perceive risks to be common (i.e., not dreaded), known, and manageable; believe present regulations are sufficient to prevent negative impacts; and hold positive background beliefs about environmental concerns. Figure 1 indicates Hypothesis 3 with an arrow that points from "facility net effect" to "attitude."

Attitude and Actions

Attitude is the basis for the intent to take action. This intent may be modified by expectation of success, availability of resources, and personal and social norms. In this study, attitude is taken as the single indicator for actions. A fourth hypothesis states that residents are more likely to respond to the facility with actions if they have a strong attitude about the facility This statement links residents' attitudes to their actions by identifying the factors that influence this relationship. Figure 1 indicates Hypothesis 4 with an arrow that points from "attitude" to "actions."

Sociodemographic Characteristics

In some studies, sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, age, income, employment with the proponent of a facility, education, length of residence in the host community, and the presence of children in the household have been shown to correlate with

* beliefs about the need for the facility,

* beliefs about the adequacy of site and design,

* beliefs about the net effects of the facility,

* general background beliefs, and

* attitude and actions toward the facility (12,14-16).

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 4 OMITTED]

Conversely, some studies have shown weak or absent connections between sociodemographic characteristics and attitude and actions (16,17). To date, therefore, a consistent link has not been established between sociodemographic variables and beliefs, attitude, and actions. If the connection holds true, sociodemographic variables can be determined early in the siting process from census data and could serve as indicators of a community's propensity to support or oppose a noxious facility. The fifth hypothesis states that residents' propensity to hold negative beliefs and attitude and to take action against an undesirable facility increases for residents with the following sociodemographic characteristics: female, under 40 years of age, higher income, not employed by the proponent, higher education, residence of more than five years in the host community, and children present in the household. Figure 1 represents Hypothesis 5 with arrows that connect sociodemographic variables to beliefs, attitude, and actions toward the facility.

The modified causal framework given in Figure 1 shows causal factors as well as the connections between facility characteristics and the attitudes and actions of the residents. Inspection of the framework reveals several clusters of factors:

1. Beliefs about the need for the facility, site, and design have independent parallel connections to beliefs about the net effects of the facility. In turn, beliefs about the net effects of the facility influence attitude.

2. Background beliefs, such as general beliefs about environmental concerns, beliefs about the adequacy of regulations, and risk perception, connect to attitude.

3. Attitude is the pivotal element in the framework because it provides a single indication of residents' disposition toward a facility and is based on specific beliefs and characteristics.

4. Sociodemographic characteristics correlate with beliefs, positive or negative attitude, and propensity to take action.

The resulting framework contains two groups of variables. The first group of variables can be controlled by engineering decisions (definition of need, site choice and design, and, ultimately, effects of the facility). A second group of variables (background beliefs and sociodemographic variables) is essentially determined by the composition of the resident population in a prospective host community. The variables in the second group are identified by computation of characteristics and may therefore be important variables for the screening and selection of host communities, as well as for the identification of important siting issues in the development of a facility siting program.

Methodology

The goal of this research is to test the causal relations in the siting framework. A medium-sized survey of 100 to 200 respondents was the research method chosen because this approach reflects the variation of individual belief-attitude-action sets in the community (18). The survey approach was selected to contrast with the exploratory case study method used in a prior study of the framework (3).

The study site, facility, and community were selected from a list of six to be

1. representative of community and facility characteristics,

2. suitable for the research purposes, and

3. accessible to the researchers.

A representative combination was achieved by the choice of a facility that is at least as strongly dreaded as a municipal waste facility and of a community that is small, located outside the urban zone, and has a sociodemographic profile with some variation in key characteristics. The location and the siting process had to be real. The siting process had to be ongoing. The attitudes in the community had to show significant variation. Finally, the facility had to be accessible to researchers, and the proponent and the community had to be willing to participate. The chemical weapons incineration facility proposed in Umatilla, Oregon, provided the best fit.

The survey instrument contained questions about each respondent's attitude, motivational factors, and action. These questions were followed by questions about the need for the facility, the site, the facility itself, net effects, risk perceptions, regulations, environmental concerns, background beliefs, and sociodemographic data. The survey captured self-reported individual belief-attitude-action sets, and each question was put at least twice to check for internal consistency. Usually a question appeared once as an open-ended question and once as a request to rate a statement according to a Likert five-point scale from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Questions proceeded from general to specific (18). The survey contained 16 questions and took about 40 minutes to complete (Figure 2).

The survey was sent to 415 randomly chosen residents to achieve wide variation in responses and to ensure that those prone to take action were over-represented. A return rate of 25 percent was achieved, which was considered fair given the length of the instrument. A slight bias in the sociodemographic composition of the respondents was apparent; older male homeowners with slightly higher income and education were slightly over-represented. These individuals, however, were also more likely to take action. Therefore, the sample contained more active respondents than the community at large and thus supported the objective of the study.

The data were coded and checked for internal consistency Invalid, inconsistent, and obviously biased outliers were discarded, so the effective sample of 93 represented a return rate of 22 percent. Summary statistics were compiled and showed that most responses were not normally distributed. The correlation analysis was therefore conducted with the nonparametric Spearman's rank correlation tests at a significance level of 95 percent (18).

Validity and reliability of the approach and the results were considered before' the field work began. Concept validity was ensured by use of both open-ended and closed-ended questions about beliefs, attitude, and actions. The open-ended responses were compared with answers to the closed-ended questions and found to match. Interpersonal variation was explicitly determined and tested. Internal consistency was ensured through a comparison of individual responses to pairs of questions about the same factors. External consistency was ensured through a comparison of sociodemographic characteristics of sample and community (see above). There was a slight but conservative bias toward people who were more prone to take action. Reliability was achieved through the use of standard questions and scales whenever possible. Questions were designed to be similar to those used in previous studies (3,9,13). All questions were pretested for comprehension, consistency, and stability of responses.

Case Study Facility and Community

The proposed facility site is located on an existing army depot in Umatilla, Oregon, about 34 miles northwest of Pendleton and 6 miles southwest of Hermiston. Five smaller communities lie within 15 miles to the west and north of the site. Agriculture is the major economic activity. Cattle, fruit and vegetables, milk, wheat, and seed crops are the major products. The sociodemographic composition of the area differs from that of the United States and of Oregon in that the population of the host community is on average 50.7 percent male (versus 49.2 percent in Oregon); has a lower average income of $23,000 (versus $27,250 in Oregon); has slightly less high school and college education (75.1 percent with high school diploma versus 81.5 percent in Oregon); has fewer single-person households; and has more ethnic minorities, mainly of Hispanic origin (6.3 percent versus 1.8 percent in Oregon). Community infrastructure and public services for hospitals, water and wastewater treatment facilities, utilities, police and fire protection, and transportation are sufficient. The schools, however, are filled to capacity, so increasing demands have to be met with temporary additional staff and buildings (19).

Currently, about 3,400 metric tons of chemical nerve agent are stored in over a thousand igloos. The army is required by a congressional mandate to destroy these agents by 2004. Furthermore, the current storage poses the significant health risk of release to air and water as a result of fire, accidents, or slow emissions.

The proposed facility site was chosen to avoid the substantial risks of long-distance transportation and the political opposition at a new site. Incineration was selected because it provides adequate destruction and because the equipment can be installed and operated to meet the deadlines for destruction (19).

The facility activities can be summarized under three phases of plant operation:

1. incinerator construction and pretrials,

2. normal operation, and

3. emergency conditions.

The impacts of the facility consist of physical and health impacts, psychological impacts, and economic and community-image impacts.

Construction and pretrials will require heavy equipment and 550 workers to build the facility, roads, infrastructure, and, possibly, spin-off homes and commercial structures. Vehicle emissions, noise, and dust will result during the construction period. The influx of workers and families is predicted to increase property demand and values, but also to increase the demand for social services, schools, police, medical services, and so forth. The construction period will be relatively short (38 months), so effects from the construction will be short-lived for the most part.

Normal operation consists of on-site storage; transportation and storage at the incinerator; handling, processing, and incineration; and subsequent pollution controls for gas and liquid exhaust streams. The exhaust gas concentrations will be lower than those allowed by all state and federal regulations. Background concentrations of particulate matter (without the proposed plant) are already higher than those allowed by the standards. Liquid discharges will occur only from sanitary sewage. Solid wastes will consist of metal scrap, ash, and brine salts. The resulting impacts will be slight health risks and some unknown effects from low-concentration contaminants. Some displacement of wildlife will occur, and psychological stress may be triggered in residents by the view and the noise. Permanent employment of 736 persons will create demand for homes and social services. Community image may improve or decline. As the period of normal operation continues without significant release, the health risks from current storage will decline to zero by 2004 (19).

Emergency conditions resulting from combinations of earthquakes, fire, and aircraft crashing into the plant could release chemical agents, disperse the agents up to 195 miles (300 kilometers) downwind, and cause a maximum of 10,300 fatalities. In addition, carcinogenic agents could cause chronic effects if the incinerator were to continue operation in the long term. Evacuation with disruption of all normal living and business activities would lead to significant stress. Contamination of land will result in property value losses, loss of employment and income, and a stigmatized community image through international news coverage of such an incident. Less serious incidents are conceivable, but also would entail most of the impacts that have been discussed (Table 1).

In summary, the need for the facility derives from current risks associated with the existing storage facility. This significant risk steadily decreases as the volume of stored agent remaining declines to zero by 2004. All three phases of the facility will cause some impacts, with construction having predominantly nuisance, economic, and social impacts. Operations will cause slight health risks and some social and economic impacts. Emergencies could entail the largest catastrophic and chronic impacts, as well as social and economic disruption and stigma (Table 1).

Results

The survey provides measures of the relationships between beliefs, attitudes, and actions of residents in response to the proposal for the nerve gas incinerator. The results are presented in the sequence with which hypotheses were developed in the theory section of this article.

Facility Need

A majority (64 percent) of respondents agree that the Army has a need for the facility. Only 43 percent, however, acknowledge that the community has a need for the facility, while 30 percent are not convinced that the community needs the facility and 27 percent are undecided (Table 1). Thus, the need of the community is ambiguous while the need of the proponent is clearly recognized. Conversely, residents' beliefs about the need of the community correlate strongly with their beliefs about the choice of site and design (with a correlation coefficient r of 0.66). The correlation is somewhat less pronounced for beliefs about the Army's need (r = 0.61) (Table 2). In other words, beliefs about the needs of both entities are significantly connected to beliefs about the adequacy of site choice and facility design. Furthermore, the perception of need by the community and the proponent is strongly linked with attitude: The correlation coefficient r is 0.8 for community need and 0.69 for the proponent's need (Table 2). These connections demonstrate that judgements about the need for the facility enter early into the causal sequence and are considered significant in subsequent judgements about siting and design process and, ultimately, in the formation of attitude. These results confirm Hypothesis 1.

Site Selection and Facility Design

The theoretical framework postulates that beliefs about the need for the facility and the adequacy of site choice and facility design are connected with the perception of the net facility effect. Thus, 58 percent of respondents believe the site to be sufficient, and 54 percent state that the facility design minimizes negative effects and maximizes positive effects. Both these beliefs are significantly correlated with the beliefs about the net effects of the facility: For belief that the best site has been chosen, the correlation coefficient r is 0.68, and for facility design, the correlation coefficient r is 0.67 (Table 2).

Beliefs About Net Facility Effects, Risk Perception, Beliefs About Regulations, and Background Beliefs

Respondents' beliefs about net effects of the facility, risk perceptions, beliefs that present regulations are sufficient, and background beliefs about environmental concerns are causally connected to attitude. According to 50 percent of respondents, the net effects are positive. On average, 30 percent do not consider the facility particularly dreaded or risky Only 40 percent believe the current regulations are adequate, while 32 percent have no negative environmental concerns.

A positive view of net effects correlates significantly with attitude; the correlation coefficient p is 0.69 (see Table 2). Risk perceptions correlate with attitude at significant coefficients p of 0.30 to 0.69. Beliefs about adequate regulations are connected to attitude with a correlation of 0.68. General environmental concern correlates with attitude with a coefficient of -0.27. The signs of the coefficients are all as expected. These results support the hypothesis of causal connections because they show that respondents with more positive beliefs about net effects and risk perceptions, stronger confidence in current regulations, and less general concern hold more positive attitudes.

Attitude and Actions

The theoretical framework links residents' attitude to the type and number of actions taken. Attitudes among the respondents were 19 percent opposed to the facility, 27 percent neutral, and 54 percent in support of the facility (Table 3). The strength of the attitude-action connection is shown by the number of actions actually taken by the five attitude groupings from strongly opposed to strongly supportive (Table 3). The cells in Table 3 are marked to show which actions have been taken by over 50 percent of respondents in a given attitude group. Opponents in general, and particularly strong opponents, appear to have taken more actions. Opponents' actions include expressive actions, and supporters confine themselves to information-gathering actions. It appears that both negative attitude and strength of attitude predetermine propensity to act. Thus, attitude shows a strong connection to action. In particular, a strong negative attitude leads to more actions and more strongly committed actions.

Sociodemographic Characteristics

Sociodemographic characteristics of the host community are suspected to influence beliefs, attitude, and actions toward a facility.

Need for the Facility

Only gender and employment with the Army show significant correlations with the perception of need. Gender correlates with the perception that the proponent needs the facility, but not with the perception that the community needs the facility. Women see less need for the facility by the Army than do men (as indicated by the negative sign in front of the correlation coefficient in Table 4). Employment with the proponent correlates with a stronger belief that the facility is needed. All other sociodemographic variables are not significantly correlated to need.

Site, Design, and Net Effect

There is no gender difference in the perception of site choice, but male gender relates to a stronger recognition of a sufficient facility design. As for facility need, employment with the Army significantly correlates with beliefs that facility site and design are adequate. None of the sociodemographic variables correlates with beliefs about the net effect of the facility, although, as discussed above, these variables do correlate with related beliefs about need, adequacy of the site, and design (Table 4).

Background Beliefs

Gender correlates with seven of 13 risk perception factors. Education correlates with three. Age, length of residence, and the presence of children correlate with two risk perception factors each. Employment with the Army correlates with one. Thus, except for gender, correlations are weak or absent. Women generally hold more negative risk perceptions than men. Beliefs about the sufficiency of regulations vary with gender, income, and employment with the Army The correlation coefficients range from 0.24 to 0.29. All other risk perception factors are insignificantly related. Women tend to believe that the regulations are not sufficient. Environmental concern is not related to sociodemographic factors in the community This finding is consistent with previously reported results about general beliefs.

Attitude About the Facility

Attitude shows significant connections with gender and age. Only gender, however, correlates with the beliefs that lead to attitude toward the facility, and therefore only gender appears to have a consistent effect on the elements in the causal chain of beliefs.

Action

No sociodemographic variables significantly correlate with self-reported actions. Thus, while some variables appear related to beliefs and attitude, the effect is not clearly connected to actions as the ultimate measure of facility acceptance. A comparison of the strength and the consistency of the correlations (Table 4) shows that gender is significantly related to 11 of the 17 belief, attitude, and action elements. Employment with the Army has seven significant correlations; all others have three or fewer significant correlations. Education and length of residence show no correlations. None of the sociodemographic factors correlates with actions taken.

Discussion

The results support the five hypothesized causal connections, albeit with caveats for some of the connections. Facility need and the adequacy of site and facility design are clearly and strongly linked through the beliefs about net effects to community residents' attitude. Of the more general beliefs, the belief that current regulations are adequate is most strongly linked to attitude. The correlations of risk perceptions and general environmental concern to attitude are weaker and less clear.

Attitude - particularly negative attitude - is strongly linked to actions. Sociodemographic variables show weak and somewhat dispersed correlation to beliefs and attitude, and they show no significant connection to actions taken.

These findings have some significant and useful implications for siting process, facility design, and impact management. First, and most significantly, attitude is the pivotal element in the causal chain.

The next step is to determine which causal factors can be modified through engineering management in order to improve attitude through the negotiations in the siting process. According to the findings of this study, the three principal factors are

1. facility need,

2. site selection and facility design, and

3. net effects of the facility (these have the strongest influence on attitude).

Although some general beliefs contribute to attitude, they are weakly connected. Also, general risk perceptions, background beliefs, and sociodemographic variables are less susceptible to change in the course of the siting process. Identification of these factors, however, may be useful as a screening tool if it can be done early and reliably. Ascertaining belief and risk perception patterns is something of a challenge because these patterns must be determined through interview or survey.

To improve the attitude of potentially affected host community residents, several simple management principles can be applied to the three principal factors. These principles have been explained, developed, and tested elsewhere in detail (3,5,18). They are presented briefly here to indicate their consequences for

1. alignment of the facility with community need,

2. improvement of site selection and facility design, and

3. management of the net facility effects.

Alignment of Facility with Need

The need of the community for a proposed facility is defined here as the ability of the facility to reduce a recognized discrepancy between the status quo and the desired reference point of the community. For example, water quality that has deteriorated over the last few years might be seen as a loss when compared with previous, better water quality Thus, if the facility can address this need, say through the construction and operation of a water treatment plant for its own water, thereby also offering the community improved water quality, then the facility would be able to address a community need. This type of improvement was provided by the hazardous waste facility in Montcalm, Manitoba, which was seen as addressing the community's need to revitalize economic and employment opportunities to maintain its status and culture as a French-speaking community (3).

In these cases, the community itself defines and judges the need of the community - and influences the function and design of the facility to meet these needs. Thus, a proponent who is willing to identify and address such needs is likely to improve the attitude toward the facility.

Site Selection and Facility Design That Optimize Net Facility Effects

Site selection and facility design have to be seen as sufficient - or better - to have a positive effect on attitude. That is, they must demonstrably minimize negative impacts, because losses from negative impacts weigh more heavily than do additional gains from positive effects, according to prospect theory (7,20). As a consequence, site selection must show that the site avoids or controls possible impact propagation patterns in the surrounding environment. Criteria for site selection include sufficient thickness of natural clay underlying the site, sufficient distance from surface waters and groundwater aquifers, absence of flood risks, and so forth. These criteria must be shown to be met by candidate sites. Often, overlay maps and specific site information are used.

The facility concept and design must be configured to fulfill the needs and to minimize the negative impacts. Thus, measures that prevent negative impacts, say through presorting of wastes to avoid harmful emissions or through limiting the types or volumes of certain wastes, have been used successfully to limit the impacts of waste facilities. Emission controls are the next most important impact reduction method, followed by monitoring and mitigation measures for releases that may occur but that can be reduced before damage is caused. Also to be considered are mitigation measures such as remediation for groundwater releases and buffer strips for noise and view impact reduction. These impact reduction measures must be integrated into and demonstrated in the site selection and facility design.

If impact reduction measures have been exhausted, then, as the last and least effective measure, compensation or substitute goods (e.g., piped water to replace contaminated well water) can be provided to improve the net facility effect. If salient negative effects remain after impact reduction, then in-kind substitute "goods" may be effective. The provision of drinking water and the construction of new fish-spawning areas or bird habitat have been used successfully to offset unavoidable losses. Compensation with alternative goods may help, but the effects are usually less significant (7). It would appear, though, that the provision of many offsets or of compensating goods of different types may have a more positive effect than the provision of one large item or the sum of several instances of one type of thing. This hypothesis has yet to be tested in siting attempts.

A confirmed causal framework for understanding residents' responses is useful to proponents and siting agencies for screening of prospective host communities, for the development of appropriate siting processes, for the design of facilities, for the design of effective impact management measures, and for the development of essential engineering information in the siting process. In addition, such a framework can be used to compile a database with which to evaluate past siting attempts and to determine effective interventions.

FIGURE 2

Survey of Options and Behaviors with Respect to Planned Chemical Demilitarization Incinerator at the Umatilla Depot Activity

This questionnaire asks about your views about the Chemical Demilitarization Incinerator planned for the Umatilla Army Depot. It should take about 30 minutes to fill out. To complete this questionnaire, you must be over 18 years of age and a permanent resident of the household. Your responses will be held strictly confidential. You may refuse to answer any question. There is an identification number on this questionnaire for record-keeping purposes only.

1) Do you support or oppose the Chemical Demilitarization Incinerator being built at the Umatilla Army Depot?

2) What do you consider to be the most important reason for your favorable or unfavorable attitude towards the incinerator being built at the Depot?

3) Which of the following actions have you taken in the past to support or oppose the incinerator? Which actions do you think you might take in the future?

a) Talk to friends or neighbors about the incinerator.

b) Write a letter or telephone an editor, public official, or company.

c) Sign or circulate a petition about the incinerator.

d) Vote for or against a candidate for public office considering his or her position on this issue.

e) Attend open houses or public hearings about the incinerator.

f) Speak at open houses or public hearings about the incinerator.

g) Join or contribute money to an organization supporting or opposing the incinerator.

h) Read and review technical information about the incinerator.

i) Attend a public demonstration in support of or opposition to the incinerator.

j) Participate in a lawsuit about the incinerator

k) Have you done or intend to do anything else? If yes, what else? Please Explain

4) The incinerator may affect the surrounding site, communities, and residents. Next is a list of factors that may be affected by the facility. In your opinion, will the incinerator have a positive effect or a negative effect on each of these factors?

a) noise b) air quality c) environmental quality (e.g., vegetation, soil) d) quality of surface water (e.g., rivers, ponds) e) quality of ground water (springs, wells) f) availability (quantity) of ground and surface water g) common and endangered wildlife populations h) health of local residents i) historic, archaeological, and cultural resources j) local property values - Why? k) product values (e.g., vegetables, fruit, wheat, beef) l) local employment rates m) local tax base n) commercial and industrial development o) public services (e.g., roads, schools) p) community image q) local influence in county, state, or federal political decisions r) other factors that may be affected by the facility

5) Overall, do you consider the positive effects from the facility to be greater than the negative effects, or the negative effects to be greater than the positive effects?

6) How much do you agree or disagree that the Chemical Demilitarization Incinerator has been planned and designed in the best way to minimize the negative effects and maximize the positive effects?

7) How much do you agree or disagree that the Umatilla Depot is the best place to put the incinerator to minimize the negative effects and maximize the positive effects?

8) Next are a few statements about characteristics of the incinerator and its planning. How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

a) The facility will protect future generations.

b) If there was an accident or problem, it could be easily cleaned up.

c) The facility design and planning is voluntary - I have a choice whether or not an incinerator is built at the Depot.

d) All the risks from the incinerator are known to the facility engineers and planners.

e) The risk from the incinerator will continue to increase with time.

f) The risks from the incinerator are known to the people who may be exposed.

g) If there was an accident or problem, people have a greater risk of long-term health effects (e.g., cancer).

h) When I think about the incinerator being built on the Depot, I get a feeling of dread.

i) The Army is trustworthy.

j) The incinerator design and planning is fair - the people at the greatest risk from the facility also receive the greatest benefit.

k) All the affected people can control how the incinerator is designed.

l) I can trust the regulator, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

m) If there were an accident or problem, it would be catastrophic - many people would be killed quickly.

9) a) How much do you agree or disagree that the incinerator is needed by the Army?

1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

b) How much do you agree or disagree that the incinerator is needed by the local residents?

1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

To finish up, I would like to get some general information about you. This information will be used only to get a profile of the demographic characteristics of the respondents.

10) a) Are you male or female? MALE 1 FEMALE 2

b) What is your age? years

c) What community do you live in? _____

d) Approximately how long have you lived in this area? years

e) Do you rent or own your home? RENT 1 OWN 2

f) Do you have any children under 18 years old living at home? YES 1 if yes How many? NO 2

g) Approximately what was your total household gross (before taxes) income for last year? $_____

h) What level of education have you received?

grade 9 or less 1 some high school 2 graduated from high school 3 some college or university 4 graduated from college or university 5 completed Masters/Doctorate degree 6

i) Are you currently employed?

YES 1 NO 2

j) What is your occupation (or was your occupation when you were employed)? (e.g., teacher, carpenter, student, farm worker)

k) In what industry do/did you work? (e.g., construction, government, education, agriculture)?

l) Have you or anyone else in your household ever been employed by the U.S.Armed Forces?

Acknowledgements

The assistance of U.S. army officials and residents in the host community is gratefully acknowledged. Funding for this research was made available by a grant to the author from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada and is sincerely appreciated.

The comments made in this article are for information purposes only and are not to be relied on in any specific situation without the express written consent of the author.

REFERENCES

1. Zeiss, C. (1994), "Source Theories and Siting Interventions," Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Waste Negotiator's Office.

2. Johnson, B. (1987), "Public Concerns and the Public Role in Siting Nuclear and Chemical Waste Facilities," Environmental Management, 11(5):571-586.

3. Zeiss, C., and L. Lefsrud (1995), "Analytical Framework for Waste Facility Siting," ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 121(4):115-145.

4. Zeiss, C., and L. Lefsrud (1996), "Making or Breaking Waste Facility Siting Successes," Environmental Management, 20(1):488-508

5. Zeiss, C., and R. Paddon (1992), "Management Principles for Negotiating Siting Agreements: A Case Study of Siting Hazardous Waste Transfer Stations in Alberta," Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 42(10): 1296-1304.

6. Lober, D. (1995), "Why Protest? Public Behavioral and Attitudinal Response to Siting a Waste Disposal Facility," Policy Studies Journal, 23(3):449-518.

7. Zeiss, C. (1991), "Community Decision Making and Impact Management Priorities," Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 11:231-255.

8. Easterling, D. (1992), "Fair Rules for Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11 (3):442-475.

9. Zeiss, C., and J. Atwater (1991), "Waste Disposal Facilities and Community Response: Tracing Pathways from Facility Impacts to Community Attitude," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 18:83-96.

10. Slovic, P (1987), "Perception of Risk," Science, 236:280-285.

11. Vaughan, E. (1993), "Chronic Exposure to an Environmental Hazard: Risk Perceptions and Self-Protective Behavior," Health Psychology, 12(1):74-85.

12. Gould, L., D. DeLuca, L. Doob, G. Gardner, J. Stolwijk, and A. Tiemann (1988), Perceptions of Technological Risks and Benefits, New York: Sage.

13. Dake, K., and A. Wildavsky (1991), "Individual Differences in Risk Perception and Risk-Taking Preferences," in Analysis, Communication, and Perception of Risk, New York: Plenum Press, pp. 15-24.

14. Davidson, D., and W. Freudenberg (1996), "Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns," Environment and Behavior, 28(3):302-339.

15. Scott, D., and F. Willits (1994), "Environmental Attitudes and Behavior," Environment and Behavior, 26(2):239-260.

16. Van Liere, K., and R. Dunlap (1980), "The Social Bases of Environmental Concern," Public Opinion Quarterly, 44:181-197.

17. Krause, D. (1993), "Environmental Consciousness," Environment and Behavior, 25(1):126-142.

18. Lefsrud, L. (1996), "Engineering a Waste Incineration Facility to Improve Residents' Attitude," M. Sc. thesis, Edmonton, Alberta: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta.

19. U.S. Army (1995), Disposal of Chemical Agents and Munitions Stored at the Umatilla Depot, Oregon, Aberdeen, Md.: Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization.

20. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky (1979), "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," Econometrica, 47(2):263-291.

Corresponding Author: Chris Zeiss, Ph.D., P.E., Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, CEB220 Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G7, Canada.