Public attitudes and risk perception toward land application of biosolids within the south-eastern United States

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 98, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 29-36

  Robinson, Kevin G ^a   Robinson, Carolyn H ^b   Raup, Lauren A ^a   Markum, Travis R ^a  

^a University of Tennessee Knoxville   (United States)

^b King College Bristol   (United States)

Author keywords

Biosolids; Community involvement; Gender; Land application; Public perception; Risk management

Indexed keywords

APPLICATION PROGRAMS; BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS; BIOSOLIDS; HEALTH RISKS; RECYCLING; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SAFETY ENGINEERING; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

'CURRENT; BIOSOLIDS RECYCLING; COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT; GENDER; GENDER-DIFFERENCES; HEALTH AND SAFETY; LAND APPLICATIONS; PUBLIC ATTITUDES; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; RISKS MANAGEMENT;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; BIOSOLID; DECISION MAKING; EMISSION; GENDER; HEALTH AND SAFETY; HEALTH RISK; IDENTIFICATION METHOD; ODOR; PERCEPTION; RECYCLING; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SOLID WASTE; STAKEHOLDER; SURVEY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOSOLID; COMMUNITY; DECISION MAKING; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SAFETY; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIAL ATTITUDE; UNITED STATES; WASTE WATER RECYCLING;

AMELIA COUNTY; UNITED STATES; VIRGINIA;

EID: 84855810538     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.12.012     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Beecher N., Connell B., Epstein E., Fitz J., Goldstein N., Lono M. Public Perception of Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public Participation and Earning Trust 2004, Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
2. Bord R.J., O'Connor R.E. The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly 1997, 78:830-840.
3. Borden G.W., Devitt D.A., Morris R.L., Robinson M.L., Lopez J. Residential assessment and perception toward biosolids compost use in an urban setting. Compost Science & Utilization 2004, 12:48-54.
4. Botterill L., Mazur N. Risk and Risk Perception: A Literature Review 2004, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
5. Bradbury J.A. The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology and Human Values 1989, 14:380-399.
6. Cash D.W., Clark W.C., Alcock F., Dickson N.M., Eckley N., Guston D.H., Jager J., Mitchell R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2003, 100:8086-8091.
7. Cheung K.C., Mooi L.C. Acomparison between the rating scale and dual scaling for Likert scales. Applied Psychological Measurement 1994, 18:1-13.
8. Covello V., Sandman P. Risk Communication: Evolution and Revolution 2001, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
9. Davidson D.J., Freudenburg W.R. Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior 1996, 28:302-339.
10. de Vaus D.A. Surveys in Social Research 1986, George Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd, London.
11. Dorn R.C., Reddy C.S., Lamphere D.N., Gaeuman J.V., Lanese R. Municipal sewage-sludge application on Ohio farms - health effects. Environmental Research 1985, 38:332-359.
12. EPA, 1994. Biosolids recycling: beneficial technology for a better environment, EPA 832-R-94-009.
13. Flynn J., Slovic P., Mertz C.K. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis 1994, 14:1101-1108.
14. Frey J.H., Oishi S.M. How to Conduct Interviews by Telephone and in Person 1995, Sage Publications, Inc., London.
15. Gerba C.P., Pepper I.L., Whithead L.F. Arisk assessment of emerging pathogens of concern in the land application of biosolids. Water Science & Technology 2002, 46:225-230.
16. Harrison E.Z., McBride M.B., Bouldin D.R. Land application of sewage sludges: an appraisal of the US regulations. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 1999, 11:1-36.
17. Johnson R.J., Scicchitano M.J. Willing and able: explaining individuals' engagement in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009, 52:833-846.
18. Khuder S., Milz S.A., Bisesi M., Vincent R., McNulty W., Czajkowski K. Health survey of residents living near farm fields permitted to receive biosolids. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health 2007, 62:5-11.
19. Kim W.C., Mauborgne R. Fair process: managing in the knowledge environment. Motivating People 2003, 127-136. January.
20. Lewis D.L., Gattie D.K. Pathogen risks from applying sewage sludge to land. Environmental Science Technology 2002, 36:287A-293A.
21. Lindsay B.E., Zhou H., Halstead J.M. Factors influencing resident attitudes regarding the land application of biosolids. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2000, 15:88-96.
22. Logan T.J. Gaining public acceptance for beneficial use of biosolids. Biocycle 1995, 36:61-64.
23. Machno, P.S., Forste J., 1997. Biosolids 2000: public acceptance of biosolids recycling. Keystone Water Quality Manager, Sept-Oct, 12.
24. Maurer T.J., Pierce H.R. Acomparison of Likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology 1998, 83:324-329.
25. Monroe J.A. The Democratic with: Popular Participation and the Limits of American Government 1990, Basic Books, New York.
26. Nancarrow B.E., Leviston Z., Po M., Porter N.B., Tucker D.I. What drives communities' decisions and behaviours on the reuse of wastewater. Water Science and Technology 2008, 57:485-491.
27. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Guidance for Controlling Risks to Workers Exposed to Class B Biosolids 2006, US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Washington, DC.
28. National Research Council Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices 2002, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
29. Outwater A.B. Reuse of Sludge and Minor Wastewater Residuals 1994, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
30. Regli S., Rose J., Haas C.N., Gerba C.P. Modeling the risk of Giardia and viruses in drinking water. Journal of American Water Works Association 1991, 83:76-84.
31. Rodriguez L., Peterson J.W. Risks from an unknown technology: how Iowans perceive agricultural sludge. Journal of Environmental Education 1999, 30:37-42.
32. Ross L., Anderson C.A. Shortcomings in the Attribution Process: On the ORIGINS and Maintenance of Erroneous Social Assessments 1982, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
33. Sandman P.M., Miller P.M., Johnson B.B., Weinstein N.D. Agency communication, community outrage, and perception of risk: three simulation experiments. Risk Analysis 1993, 13:585-598.
34. Sjöberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis 2001, 21:189-198.
35. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis 1999, 19:689-701.
36. Spangler M.B. Polity Issues Related to Worst Case Risk Analyses and the Establishment of Acceptable Standards of de Minimis Risk 1984, Plenum Press, New York.
37. Shusterman D. Critical Review: the health significance of environmental odour pollution. Archives of Environmental Health 1992, 47:76-87.
38. Steger M.A.E., Witt S.L. Gender differences in environmental orientations - a comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the United States. Western Political Quarterly 1989, 42:627-649.
39. Tyson J.M. Perceptions of sewage sludge. Water Science and Technology 2002, 46:373-380.