Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 1131–1145 | Cite as

Community Perception of Water Quality in a Mining-Affected Area: A Case Study for the Certej Catchment in the Apuseni Mountains in Romania

  • Diana Dogaru
  • Jürg Zobrist
  • Dan Balteanu
  • Claudia Popescu
  • Mihaela Sima
  • Manouchehr Amini
  • Hong Yang
Article

Abstract

Mining-contaminated sites and the affected communities at risk are important issues on the agenda of both researchers and policy makers, particularly in the former communist block countries in Eastern Europe. Integrated analyses and expert based assessments concerning mining affected areas are important in providing solid policy guidelines for environmental and social risk management and mitigation. Based on a survey for 103 households conducted in a former mining site in the Certej Catchment of the Apuseni Mountains, western Romania, this study assesses local communities’ perceptions on the quality of water in their living area. Logistic regression was used to examine peoples’ perception on the quality of the main river water and of the drinking water based on several predictors relating to social and economic conditions. The results from the perception analysis were then compared with the measurements of heavy metal contamination of the main river and drinking water undertaken in the same study area. The findings indicate that perception and measurement results for the water quality in the Certej Catchment are convergent, suggesting an obvious risk that mining activities pose on the surface water. However, the perception on drinking water quality was little predicted by the regression model and does not seem to be so much related to mining as to other explanatory factors, such as special mineralogy of rock and soils or improper water treatment infrastructure, facts suggested by the measurements of the contaminants. Discussion about the implications of these joint findings for risk mitigation policies completes this article.

Keywords

Community risk perception Mining pollution Water quality Western Romania 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Romanian Ministry for Education and Research within the framework of the Swiss-Romanian cooperation program on “Environmental Science and Technology in Romania - ESTROM”. JRP grant No IB6120-107015. It was a joint project of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag) in Switzerland, the Institute of Geography (IG) in Romania, and the Research Institute for Analytical Instrumentation (ICIA), Cluj-Napoca, Romania. The authors would like to thank the chemical team at ICIA for analyzing and providing water quality data, Mr. Paul Serban for his help with the questionnaire surveys, and Hermine Maersohn for improving English of this article. We also would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and useful suggestions which greatly improved this article. The findings and opinions expressed are the authors’ and should not be attributed to persons who provided assistance with various aspects of the study.

References

  1. Aven T, Kristensen V (2005) Perspectives on risk: review and discussion of the basis for establishing a unified and holistic approach. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 90:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aykol A, Budakoglu M, Kumral M, Gultekin AH, Turhan M, Esenli V, Yavuz F, Orgun Y (2003) Heavy metal pollution and acid drainage from the abandoned Balya Pb-Zn Sulfide Mine, NW Anatolia, Turkey. Environmental Geology 45(2):198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bafoil F (1996) La question silésienne: autonomie et restructuration industrielle. Le Courrier des Pays de l’Est 413:63–75Google Scholar
  4. Beynon H, Hudson R, Sadler D (1991) A tale of two industries. The contraction of coal and steel in the North East of England. Open University Press, Buckingham, p 160Google Scholar
  5. Bianco A, Nobile CGA, Gnisci F, Pavia M (2008) Knowledge and perceptions of the health effects of environmental hazards in the general population in Italy. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 211:412–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bickerstaff K (2004) Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environment International 30:827–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bickerstaff K, Walker G (2001) Public understandings of air pollution: the ‘localisation’ of environmental risk. Global Environmental Change 11:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bird G, Brewer PA, Macklin MG, Serban M, Balteanu D, Driga B (2005) Heavy metal contamination in the Aries River catchment, western Romania: implications for development of the Rosia Montana gold deposit. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 86:26–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonaiuto M, Carrus G, Martorella H, Bonnes M (2002) Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protected areas. Journal of Economic Psychology 23:631–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boni M, Costabile S, De Vivo B, Gasparrini M (1999) Potential environmental hazard in the mining district of southern Iglesiente (SW Sardinia, Italy). Journal of Geochemical Exploration 67(1–3):417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brody SD, Peck BM, Highfield WE (2004) Examining localized patterns of air quality perception in Texas: a spatial and statistical analysis. Risk Analysis 24(6):1561–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brody SD, Highfield WE, Peck BM (2005) Exploring the mosaic of perceptions for water quality across watersheds in San Antonio, Texas. Landscape and Urban Planning 73:200–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boult S, Collins DN, White KN, Curtis CD (1994) Metal transport in a stream polluted by acid mine drainage – The Afon Goch, Anglesey, UK. Environmental Pollution 84(3):279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavanagh N, McDaniels T, Axelrod L, Slovic P (2000) Perceived ecological risks to water environments from selected forest industry activities. Forest Science 46(3):344–355Google Scholar
  15. Chiribuca D, Comsa M, Dincu V, Rotariu T (2000) The impact of economic restructuring in mono-industrial areas. Strategies and alternatives for the labor reconversion of the formerly redundant in the Jiu Valley, Romania. SOCO Project Paper 87, IWM Publications, Vienna. Accessed online March 2008: http://www.iwm.at/publ-spp/soco87pp.pdf
  16. Cowell SJ, Wehrmeyer W, Argust PW, Robertson JGS (1999) Sustainability and the primary extraction industries: theories and practice. Resources Policy 25(4):277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crane M, Kevin WH, Knok CW, Whitehouse P, Lui GCS (2007) Use of field data to support European Water Framework Directive quality standards for dissolved metals. Environmental Science and Technology 41:5014–5021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Czaja S (2001) Mining and hydrological transformations in Upper Silesia from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century. The Geographical Journal 167(1):57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns - A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior 28(3):302–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. EC 98/83 (1998) Council directive on the quality of water intended for human consumption. OJ C 330, 5.12.1998: 32–54. Accessed online December 2008: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:330:0032:0054:EN:PDF
  21. EC 2000/60 (2006) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC. COM (2006) 397 final, 17 July 2006, Brussels, Belgium. Accessed online December 2008: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0397:FIN:EN:PDF
  22. European Commission (1998) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters—Aarhus Convention. Accessed online March 2008: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/index.htm
  23. European Commission Directive 2003/35/EC, providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment. Accessed online March 2008: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2003/l_156/l_15620030625en00170024.pdf
  24. El-Zein A, Nasrallah R, Nuwayhid I, Kai L, Makhoul J (2006) Why do neighbors have different environmental priorities? Analysis of environmental risk perception in a Beirut neighborhood. Risk Analysis 26(2):423–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Faulkner H, Green A, Pellaumail K, Weaver T (2001) Residents’ perceptions of water quality improvements following remediation work in the Pymme’s Brook catchment, north London, UK. Journal of Environmental Management 62:239–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freudenburg WR (1991) Rural-Urban differences in environmental concern: a closer look. Sociological Inquiry 61:167–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grasmück D, Scholz RW (2005) Risk perception of heavy metal soil contamination by high-exposed and low-exposed inhabitants: the role of knowledge and emotional concerns. Risk Analysis 25(3):611–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greenberg MR, Schneider DF (1995) Gender differences in risk perception: effects differ in stressed versus non-stressed environments. Risk Analysis 15(4):503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gunter JT, Hodges DG, Regens JL (2005) Probability models for predicting local water quality regulations in the southern United States. Forest Policy and Economics 7:868–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanley N, Wright RE, Alvarez-Farizo B (2006) Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management 78:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howel D, Moffatt S, Bush J, Dunn CE, Prince H (2003) Public views on the links between air pollution and health in Northeast England. Environmental Research 91:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lumley S, Hercock M (2000) Locational and socio-economic variation in public perceptions of economics and the environment. GeoJournal 51:235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mendoza JA, Dahlin T, Barmen G (2006) Hydrogeological and hydrochemical features of and area polluted by heavy metals in central Nicaragua. Hydrogeology Journal 14:777–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Menegaki AN, Hanley N, Tsagarakis KP (2007) The social acceptability and valuation of recycled water in Crete: a study of consumers’ and farmers’ attitudes. Ecological Economics 62:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ministry of Environment and Waters Management (2005) Report on inland waters quality (in Romanian). Accessed online March 2008: http://www.mmediu.ro/ape/calitatea_apelor_2005/Starea_raurilor_interioare.pdf
  36. Monitorul Oficial, No. 291/27.10.1997 (Ordonanta de Urgenta nr.64/23.10.1997); 378/2.10.1998 (Ordonanta de Urgenta nr.24/30.09.1998); 282/22.06.2000 (Ordonanta de Urgenta nr.75/16.06.2000); 573/4.07.2005 (Ordonanta de Urgenta nr.72/29.06.2005). Accessed online December 2008: http://legislatie.just.ro/Document.aspx
  37. Neupane RP, Sharma KR, Thapa BP (2002) Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis. Agricultural Systems 72:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norton BG, Hannon B (1997) Environmental values: a place-based theory. Environmental Ethics 19(3):227–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Okrent D, Pidgeon N (1998) Risk perception versus risk analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 59:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pearce D (1998) Economics and environment. Essays on ecological economics and sustainable development. Edward Elgar, UK, 384 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. Pidgeon N (1998) Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: why we do need risk perception research. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 59:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Popescu C, Negut S, Roznovietchi I, Suditu BA, Vlad LB (2003) Zonele miniere defavorizate din Romania. Abordare geografica. ASE Press, Bucharest, 286 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Razo I, Carrizales L, Castro J, Diaz-Barriga F, Monroy M (2004) Arsenic and heavy metal pollution of soil, water and sediments in a semi-arid climate mining area in Mexico. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 152(1–4):129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Renn O (1998) The role of risk perception for risk management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 59:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Revista Minelor (1996–2005) edited by the Department of Mineral Resources of the Ministry of Economy and Commerce and University of Petrosani, Infomin Deva Publishing House, Deva, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  46. Salka WM (2001) Urban-Rural conflict over environmental policy in the western United States. The American Review of Public Administration 31(1):33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Satterfield TA, Mertz CK, Slovic P (2004) Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Analysis 24(1):115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stedman RC (2004) Risk and climate change: perceptions of key policy actors in Canada. Risk Analysis 24(5):1395–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sjöberg L (2001) Political decisions and public risk perception. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 72:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Syme GJ, Porter NB, Goeft U, Kington EA (2008) Integrating social well being into assessments of water policy: meeting the challenge for decision makers. Water Policy 10(4):323–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turgeon S, Rodriguez MJ, Thériault M, Levallois P (2004) Perception of drinking water in the Quebec City region (Canada): the influence of water quality and consumer location in the distribution system. Journal of Environmental Management 70:363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wakefield SEL, Elliot SJ, Cole DC, Eyles JD (2001) Environmental risk and (re)action: air quality, health, and civic involvement in an urban industrial neighbourhood. Health and Place 7:163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wakefield SEL, Elliot SJ, Eyles JD, Cole DC (2006) Taking environmental action: the role of local composition, context, and collective. Environmental Management 37(1):40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Younger PL (1997) The longevity of mine water pollution: a basis for decision-making. Science of the Total Environment 194–195:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Younger PL, Coulton RH, Froggatt EC (2005) The contribution of science to risk-based decision-making: lessons from the development of full-scale treatment measures for acidic mine waters at Wheal Jane, UK. Science of the Total Environment 338:137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zobrist J, Sima M, Dogaru D, Senila M, Yang H, Popescu C, Roman C, Bela A, Frei L, Dold B, Balteanu D (2009) Environmental and socioeconomic assessment of impacts by mining activities—a case study in the Certej river catchment, Western Carpathians, Romania. To be published in Environmental Science and Pollution ResearchGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana Dogaru
    • 1
  • Jürg Zobrist
    • 2
  • Dan Balteanu
    • 3
  • Claudia Popescu
    • 1
  • Mihaela Sima
    • 3
  • Manouchehr Amini
    • 2
  • Hong Yang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Human GeographyInstitute of Geography of the Romanian AcademyBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)DübendorfSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Physical GeographyInstitute of Geography of the Romanian AcademyBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations