Abstract
This paper examines the attitudes and perceptions of local people about ecological resources, environmental hazards, and future land use of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Such monitoring of attitudes is an important aspect of environmental assessment. We interviewed 262 people who attended the 42nd Annual Free Fishermen's Breakfast at St. Anthony, Idaho, on 23 March 1997. We tested the null hypotheses that there were no differences in perceptions about ecological resources, hazards and future land use of INEEL as a function of gender, age, education, and place of residence. Dumping trash in the ocean and cutting rainforests rated as the environmental problems of highest concern, and ozone, radon and high voltage lines rated the lowest; cleaning up Department of Energy sites rated intermediate. Respondents were most willing to expend government funds to make drinking water clean. Three significant differences were found: 1) women rated environmental problems as more severe than did men, and women were more willing to expend federal funds to solve these problems, 2) respondents under 30 years of age rated environmental problems as more severe than older people, and they were more willing to spend money to solve them, and, 3) respondents who had not finished high school were more concerned with environmental problems and were more willing to spend money to solve them than respondents with a high school education. Maintaining INEEL as a National Environmental Research Park (NERP) rated as the most preferred future land use, followed by continued reprocessing of nuclear materials and hunting. Using INEEL for housing and additional nuclear waste storage rated the lowest. Men rated grazing livestock and additional nuclear waste storage higher than did women. In general, respondents from 30 – 49 rated several economic uses (hunting, grazing livestock, growing crops) higher than did people in other age groups. Respondents with some college rated these economic uses higher than did respondents who had not graduated from high school. These results indicate that respondents living around INEEL believe that INEEL should continue with a reprocessing and NERP mission, but that other peripheral uses, such as hunting, hiking and grazing, should be allowed on some of the land. These views should aid in environmental assessment of the site, and in developing further management plans for INEEL.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brody, C. J.: 1984, ‘Differences by sex in support for nuclear power', Social Forces 63, 209.
Burger, J.: 1998, ‘Recreation and risk', J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 52, 269.
Burger, J.: 1997, ‘Environmental attitudes and perceptions of future land use at the Savannah River site: are there racial differences?', J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 53, 255.
Burger, J., Sanchez, J., Gibbons, J. W. and Gochfeld, M.: 1997, ‘Risk perception, federal spending, and the Savannah River Site: attitudes of hunters and fishermen', Risk Anal. 17, 313.
Carney, R. E. (ed.): 1971, ‘Attitudes toward risk', in: Risk Taking Behavior: Concepts, Methods, and Applications to Smoking and Drug Abuse. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
DeJoy, D.: 1992, ‘An examination of gender differences in traffic accident risk perception', Accident Anal. Prevent. 24, 237.
Department of Energy (DOE): 1996, Charting the course: the future use report. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DOE/EM-0283.
DOE: 1994, Department of Energy National Environmental Research Parks. Office of Energy Research, DOE, Washington, D.C. DOE/ER-0615P.
Dillman, D. A.: 1978, Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C. K.: 1994a, ‘Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository', Risk Anal. 6, 643.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C. K.: 1994b, ‘Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks', Risk Anal. 14, 1101.
Frey, J. H. and Oishi, S. M.: 1995, How to Conduct Interviews by Telephone and in Person, Vol. 4 of The Survey Kit, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 43–146.
Greenberg, M., Krueckeberg, D., Lowrie, K., Maer, H., Simon, D., Isserman, A. and Sorenson, D.: 1998, ‘Socioeconomic impacts of US nuclear weapons facilities', Appl. Geography, 18, 101.
Grumbine, R. E.: 1997, ‘Reflections on “What is Ecosystem Management?”', Conserv. Biol. 11, 41.
Gutteling, J. M. and Wiegman, O.: 1993, ‘Gender-specific reactions to environmental hazards in the Netherlands', Sex Roles 28, 433.
Gwartney-Gibbs, P. A. and Lach, D. H.: 1991, ‘Sex differences in attitudes toward nuclear war', J. Peace Res. 28, 161.
Hadden, S. G.: 1991, ‘Public perception of hazardous waste', Risk Anal. 11, 47.
Hance, B. J., Chess, C. and Sandman, P.: 1989, ‘Setting a context for explaining risk', Risk Anal. 9, 113.
Idaho: 1997, Idaho 1997 Big Game Rules. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.
Jaffe, G.: 1991, ‘Comments on public perception of hazardous waste', Risk Anal. 11, 59.
Jasanoff, S.: 1993, ‘Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis', Risk Anal. 13, 123.
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X. and Ratick, S.: 1988, ‘The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework', Risk Anal. 8, 177.
Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (eds.): 1992, Social Theories of Risk, New York, Praeger.
Lowrie, K. and Greenberg, M.: 1997, ‘Placing future land use planning in a regional context: the Savannah River Site', Federal Facilit. Environ. J. 1, 51.
McDaniels, T., Axelrod, L. J. and Slovic, P.: 1995, ‘Characterizing perceptions of ecological risk', Risk Anal 15, 575.
Mitchell, R. G. Peterson, D. Roush, D. Brooks, R. W., Paulus, L. R., Martin, D. B. and Lantz, B. S.: 1997, August, ‘Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1996', Environmental Science and Research Foundation, Idaho Falls, Idaho, pp. 1–3 through 1–8. ESRF-018.
National Research Council (NRC): 1993, Issues in Risk Assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council: 1994, Building Consensus through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Pillisuk, M. and Acredolo, C.: 1988, ‘Fear of technological hazards: one concern or many?', Social Behav. 3, 17.
Rogers, G. O.: 1997, ‘The dynamics of risk perception: how does perceived risk respond to risk events?', Risk Anal. 17, 745.
Slovic, P.: 1987, ‘Perceptions of risk', Science 236, 280.
Slovic, P., Kraus, N. N., Lappe, H., Letzel, H. and Malmfors, T.: 1989, ‘Risk perception of prescription drugs: report on a survey in Sweden', Pharm. Med. 4, 43.
Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. K., Neil, N. and Bartlett, S.: 1995, ‘Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada', Risk Anal. 15, 661.
Solomon, K. R.: 1996, ‘Overview of recent developments in ecotoxicological risk assessment', Risk Anal. 16, 627.
Spigner, C., Hawkins, W. and Loren, W.: 1993, ‘Gender differences in perceptions of risk associated with alcohol and drug use among college students', Women Health 20, 87.
Steger, M. A. and Witte, S. L.: 1989, ‘Gender differences in environmental orientations: a comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the U.S.', West. Polit. Q. 42, 627.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L.: 1993, ‘Value orientations, gender, and environmental concerns', Environ. Behav. 25, 322.
U. S. Census Bureau. 1996. USA Counties 1996: Fremont, ID, General Profile U.S. Bureau of Census. http://www.census.gov/statab/USA96/16/069.txt
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burger, J., Roush, D.E., Sanchez, J. et al. Attitudes and Perceptions about Ecological Resources, Hazards, and Future Land Use of People Living near the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Environ Monit Assess 60, 145–161 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006104329182
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006104329182