PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8269380

Risk perception differences in a community with a municipal solid waste incinerator.

Abstract

Using a community model of risk perception, we conducted an environmental risk perception survey in a community with an operating municipal solid waste incinerator to further understanding of community responses to technology perceived as "hazardous". The specific aims of the survey were to study attitudes to waste management (incineration in particular) and to identify sociological attributes which help shape community attitudes to the facility. Approximately one third of the community were unaware of the incinerator. Those unaware gave lower desirability ratings to incinerator technology than the aware group. About half of the aware group were concerned about the facility and rated the incinerator in the same way as those who were unaware; however, the remainder (the unconcerned) appear to have accepted the incinerator. The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that informing the public about technology perceived as hazardous may not lead to alarm, but may in fact increase acceptance.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A S Ostry, C Hertzman, K Teschke. Risk perception differences in a community with a municipal solid waste incinerator.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8269380/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Implementing emergency research requiring exception from informed consent, community consultation, and public disclosure.

Conducting emergency research in the out-of-hospital and emergency department setting is a challenge because of the inability of patients to provide informed consent in many situations. Federal guidelines allowing research under an exception from informed consent for emergency research have been established (21 CRF 50.24). Community consultation and public disclosure, 2 required components of obtaining this exception, are seen by many as a barrier to resuscitation research. This article will provide a brief overview of the history of the exception from informed consent for emergency research and summarize our methods recently used to successfully complete community consultation and public disclosure for a trial evaluating 2 devices used during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a large metropolitan area.

Attitude to Health↗