1999 - Finse, Depertment of Geography Univeristy of Bergen, Norway, July 3-7th

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/2769

Browse

Browsing 1999 - Finse, Depertment of Geography Univeristy of Bergen, Norway, July 3-7th by Author "Snary, Christopher D."

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A Planned Risk?
    (AESOP, 1999) Snary, Christopher D.
    Main theme of PhD Planning applications for waste disposal units are notoriously met by considerable local opposition. In the case of waste incinerators much of this opposition has been centred upon the potential that the emissions have to pose a health risk. There has been a tendency among waste management companies to view such concerns as irrational, and consequently to approach the problem with a view that education and the provision of information will induce positive changes in people's perceptions towards waste incinerators. This approach has been widely criticised for: being unsuccessful at reducing the level of local opposition accompanying incinerator planning applications; not realising that the problem goes well beyond NIMBY and involves issues of risk perception, trust, and fundamental decisions about the most appropriate waste management strategy (1); and, not making decisions through fair and competent discourse (2). It is increasingly being realised that risk must be looked at within a social context (3); (4), and that non-uniform scientific approaches to assessing environmental risk could be producing non-consistent results (5). Much literature and past research has established risk as a socially constructed problem. Theories on public perception of risk indicate that risk has physical, psychological, social, political, ethical, and economic dimensions (6); (7); (8); (9); (10); and (11). Therefore, it can be said that the effective assessment of risk requires an interdisciplinary approach that recognises the inherent scientific and social pluralities; an integration of scientific and non-scientific perspectives that are both expert in their contexts; and a recognition of citizen knowledge and expertise.