Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:56:23.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors influencing resident attitudes regarding the land application of biosolids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Bruce E. Lindsay ,
Haojiang Zhou  and
John M. Halstead
Bruce E. Lindsay*
Affiliation:
Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, Department of Resource Economics and Development, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824.
Haojiang Zhou
Affiliation:
Former M.S. student, Department of Resource Economics and Development, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824.
John M. Halstead
Affiliation:
Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, Department of Resource Economics and Development, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824.
*
Corresponding author is B.E. Lindsay (blindsay@christa.unh.edu).
Get access

Abstract

Residential household owners were surveyed in two different New Hampshire communities that varied in terms of population size, degree of rurality, and per capita income, each with no activities in land application of biosolids. Logit models were developed and logistic regression analyses were carried out for each community. The empirical results suggest that the perception by residents of the potential economic benefits and negative impacts from land application of biosolids can be very influential in achieving public acceptance. From a policymaker's viewpoint, this suggests the need for sound educational programs that explicitly describe the economic benefits, negative impacts, and potential risks that typically occur with land application of biosolids. Supportive studies are needed to complement the educational programs. These measures will allow residents to weigh the relative benefits and costs to determine their positions on this approach to management of biosolids and to discount emotional judgements and misinformation. The media needs to ensure that newspaper, magazine, and television reports are accurate and taken from reliable sources. Survey results suggest that the less volume of information presented by the media, the more supportive residents are of land application. Therefore, with such sensitivity by respondents to quantity of information, it is imperative that media outlets place high priority on the quality and accuracy of materials presented. Socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents did not influence attitudes toward acceptance or rejection of biosolids application, thus eliminating the difficulty that social stratification could cause in achieving acceptance.

Keywords

compostingeconomic benefitseducational programshousehold surveysnegative impactssewage sludgewaste management
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 88 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Aldrich, J.H., and Nelson, F.D.. 1984. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Sage University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1998. Town meetings focus on the debate over biosolids. Foster's Sunday Citizen (March 8):21A. Dover, NH.Google Scholar
3.Beecher, N. 1996. Regulatory shift impacts biosolids management in New Hampshire. BioCycle 37(2):64–69.Google Scholar
4.Cornell University. 1998. Land application of sewage sludges. In Cornell Recommends for Integrated Field Crop Management. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY. Web site http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/Sludge/Recommends.html (verified February 2000).Google Scholar
5.Eichorn, J. 1997. Biosolids by any other name: Controversy continuing to surround spreading of sludge—Reid talks of sludge dangers. The Transcript (11 6). Rochester, NH.Google Scholar
6.EPA. 1994. A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule. EPA/832/R-93/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC. Web site http://www.epa.gov/owmitnet/bio/htm (verified March 2000).Google Scholar
7.Estes, G.O., Mitchell, J.R., and Crispi., M. 1995. Residuals management and land stewardship. Research Rep. 132. University of New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Durham.Google Scholar
8.Gelfand, M., Lampel, J., Sacs, P., Mazzurco, A., and Sikiric, I.. 1997. Costs and nutrients. SludgeNet: The Comprehensive Guide to Sludge/Biosolids Management. Hofstra University, Environmental Engineering Dept., Long Island, NY. Web site http://www.hofstra.edu/~mgelfa20/sendesin/pagel.htm (verified March 2000).Google Scholar
9.Goldstein, N. 1998. National overview of biosolids management. BioCycle 39(12):64–68.Google Scholar
10.Goldstein, N., and Steuteville, R.. 1993. BioCycle biosolids survey: Biosolids composting makes healthy progress. BioCycle 34(12):48–57.Google Scholar
11.Haag, J.E. 1992. Sludge under suspician. Farm Journal (03):16–19.Google Scholar
12.Halstead, J.M., and Estes, G.. 1998. Economic, social, and health considerations in land application of biosolids. Res. Human Capital Develop. 12:161–182.Google Scholar
13.Halstead, J.E., Luloff, A.E., and Myers, S.D.. 1993. An examination of the NIMBY syndrome: Why not in my backyard. J. Community Develop. Soc. 24:88–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Halstead, J.E., Whitcomb, J.L., and Hamilton, L.C.. 1999. Economic insights into the siting problem: An application of the expected utility model. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 28:65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.King County. 1997. Biosolids recycling program impacts and mitigation measures. In Biosolids Reuse Program Alternative. King County Dept. of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. Web site http://waterquality.metrokc.gov/rwsp/eisch10.html (accessed March 1998).Google Scholar
16.Kline, E., Cirillo, N., and Sugerman, J.. 1993. Promising Techniques: Hazardous Waste Siting Process. Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management, Medford, MA.Google Scholar
17.Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., Desvouges, W., and Slovic, P.. 1990. Public attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis 10:469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Lober, D.J. 1993. Beyond self-interest: A model of public attitudes toward waste facility siting. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 36:345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Logan, T.J. 1995. Gaining public acceptance for beneficial use of biosolids. Bio-Cycle 36(12):61–64.Google Scholar
20.Logsdon, G. 1992. How does society learn about sludge safety? BioCycle 33(5):68–70.Google Scholar
21.Loomis, J.B. 1988. An introduction to contingent valuation using dichotomous choice models. J. Leisure Res. 20:46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Moll, T. 1997. EPA response to CNN broadcast on biosolids. Web site http://www.nwbiosolids.org/new/messages/39.html (accessed March 1998).Google Scholar
23.OTA. 1989. Facing America's Trash: What's Next for Municipal Solid Waste? OTA-O-424. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
24.Portney, K.E. 1985. The potential of the theory of compensation for mitigating public opposition to hazardous waste treatment facility siting: Some evidence from five Massachusetts communities. Policy Studies J. 14(1):81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Ramer, H. 1998. Ruben calls for moratorium on sludge. Foster's Daily Democrat (02 24). Dover, NH.Google Scholar
26.Schultz, S., and Lindsay, B.E.. 1990. The willingness to pay for groundwater protection. Water Resour. Res. 26:1869–1875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Schultz, S., and Luloff, A.E.. 1990. The threat of nonresponse bias to survey research. J. Community Develop. Soc. 21:104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Smith, V.K., and Desvouges, W.H.. 1987. An empirical analysis of the economic value of risk changes. J. Political Econ. 95:89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.SOICC (State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee). 1998. New Hampshire Community Profile. New Hampshire Employment Security Bureau, p. 1–11.Google Scholar
30.SPSS. 1994. Professional Statistics 6.1. SPSS, Inc., Concord, NH.Google Scholar
31.Swallow, S.K., Wilshelns, D., Opaluch, J.J., and Weaver, T.. 1990. A New Approach to Siting Noxious Facilities within Old Political-Regulatory Paradigms: Some Insights from a New England Landfill Siting Process. Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation; University of Rhode Island, Kingston.Google Scholar
32.Van Liere, K.D., and Dunlap, R.E.. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Q. 44:181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Water Environment Federation. 1997. Beneficial use. Water Environment. Alexandria, VA. Web site http://www.wef.org/docs/beneficialuse.html (accessed March 1998).Google Scholar
34.Whitcomb, J. 1994. Public attitudes towards siting municipal solid waste composting facilities. M.S. thesis. University of New Hampshire, Durham.Google Scholar